Відео

I'm going to be honest Taking20's complaint in the second video about the ranger is more of a problem with ranged combatants in general in most systems, since most encounters in modules and the like do not often have cover since PF2e isn't really that kind of game, and especially since he's coming from 5e and has probably never interacted with that system's cover rules. I have only ever had to interact with 5e's cover rules once during a module playtest and there is a reason that module has a custom homebrew tower shield based on the ones from 3.5 and PF1e.

I'm sorry but you lose me a bit when you start talking about using new subclasses with old classes. They explicitly said that having 2024 PHB replaces the old one, which means using anything from the new book to create your character means using the new class rules.

The main problem people have with PF2e from a 3.x perspective is that PF2e's structure was simply not needed to address issues. They wanted a similar engine/system, updated, with better quality control. That's really it. That's all anyone ever wanted out of anything after 3.x, yet it was never given. For this reason I find it a bit of a disingenuous side step to say PF2e is structured "this way" for this reason, when, while that may be true, it leaves out the part where much of those changes are unnecessary. This analysis here also leaves out the pointed fact of the PF2e/4e similarities and the legitimate reasons as to why 4e as a game, and not just the next d&d, failed on a design level. As a result PF2e fails on a number of important points.

My opinion is that if they still sell previously published content on Beyond, then they are tacitly implying that they expect players to use it.

wow, the publisher that gave us such well-thought-out concepts like bonus actions, peace clerics, and bounded accuracy is shipping more unbalanced stuff? color me shocked.

The Real Advice shouda been "play pathfinder."

Why would you try and make it backward compatibile? Its not a console.

Do casters in 5e even do good damage with cantrips? Eldritch Blast is the only damage cantrip that keeps up with martial damage, and that's only if you have the invocations that make it better.

100% they are approaching this the wrong way. WoTC can’t decide if they want things to be new and improved or not. They want to have their cake and eat it too. “It’s a new edition but it’s not a new edition because it’s compatible!” I know you may have been a bit tongue in cheek here because of how unclear they are, but I don’t think Jeremy Crawford meant that “you can pick and choose to mix a 2014 class with a 2024 subclass and vice versa.” I think he means that you can have a group with some 2014 characters and some 2024 characters. But they are trying to be vague so people don’t feel FORCED to buy the new books, but that they WANT to buy them. But you just can’t do both. And the statement that you CAN play a 2014 and 2024 character together still is just a technicality to me. You COULD play a PF2e character in a D&D 5e game, it doesn’t mean it’s going to be fun for the table or work well 😂.

I know you turned off comments on the video, and I know this is far removed from the time - but thank you for all you do, thank you for your work, and thank you for the activism you do to make this world a better place. Was over the moon when my favorite PF content creator had the same leftist views. Wish you the best!

The problem i have with these videos from WOTC has mainly to do with....we don't have anything that shows any of the new wording...we only have vague ideas. They could have at least showed us some of the spells/features from low level classes and some spells like smite snd Hunter's mark, but im just assuming we're going with the changes made in the unearthed arcana

Remember folks, there's a reason why out of 100 new players only 5-10 will take a shot at dming, and also there's a reason why when you go to a lgs most of the DMs are older people in their 40s... DMing has become a nightmare due to balancing reasons and it's an extremely ungrateful "job" with a lot of work. Wotc will eventually release adventures that can be run with A.I replacing the DM. Mark my words

Wouldn't really say PF2 killed Multiclassing. With the new feat system, you're still gaining abilities from other classes instead of ones from yours, so it's still essentially multiclassing, just done differently. Saying multiclassing was killed implies that no cross class abilities occur, which is simply not the case. And in theory, there really isn't much of any limitation that one would run into when creating more of these "feats" making this "no multiclassing" an "in name" only kind of thing and not really true.

I always keep in my<ind that the DM has the last word. So, if I was to DM 2024 D&D, I would say "You can't use 2014" and if I was playing 2014, 2024 would be out! But that's why I'm going back to AD&D 2nd in the next month!

Let hasbro starve.

Wotc looks at players and dms and goes. "Well theres more players then DMs so that must mean we will get more money by focusing on the players. since DMs can do whatever they want." Thanks wotc

I do think there's an alternate interpretation: Since the spells and classes are the same (although with tweaks), it seems that what they mean by "you can use the 2014 paladin" likely means "you can use your old character with the new rules without having to completely rewrite the character". Compared to the headache of converting a character between editions (or to another system entirely), just having "you just have to change a few numbers on the sheet" would be quite useful. As for backward compatibility, they are probably referring to the non-corebook 5th edition content that has already been put out, so you can still play 5th edition Curse of Strahd or Ebberon without having to wait for a replacement book (and WotC can focus on making new content, rather than having to update dozens of sourcebooks and adventures). I suspect we may get some updated books (for instance, an updated version of the Artificer would likely come down the line), but most of a player's collection would still be usable.

So I'm just making notes as I listen, when you are talking about paladin and smite, you're mixing editions on the same character which I interpret can't be done. I would expect them to release a short PDF of how to move features around if you want to play a subclass that hasn't been re-published yet. Kobold Press did something similar for their 5e clone.

WotC did not have the guts to do what was needed and fix the core issues with 5e which would have required a complete rework or a new edition. Everything from the action economy, to the ridiculous way that 1 instance of disadvantage overrides 3 instances of advantage, etc should have been fixed.

New DM can neither get the Legendary Bundle anymore, which gave 15 % (I think) discount, yet old DM still enjoy the discount. BA Healing Potion is stolen from Matt Mercer Taldorei book

Kingmaker settlement rules on Archives of Nethys really helped a lot when I was world building a city for my homebrew and had questions the GM Core really didn't help with.

I don't think Paladin 2014 with Vengence 2024 is allowed, as both Paladin and Vengence exist in 2024, so using anything 2024 will lead to Paladin 2014 becoming 2024. Note: DM can overule any guideline, I just know I wouldn't allow it.

I wouldn’t say I’m boycotting. I’m just over them. I can’t even enjoy my 5e books anymore it feels gross to even open them. Once you get to that point you don’t have to actively boycott, your body does it for you. I’m not boycotting toxic waste, im just repulsed enough to avoid it

I find it wild that you can have a 2014 and a 2024 Paladin at the same table, but only the 2024 Paladin can have their Smite Counterspelled. That just doesn’t sit right with me

We already have (poor) DMs in 5E who ban stuff left and right or refuse to allow anything from books/content outside of the specific book/Adventurers they are running. Those same DMs not allowing anything from pre 2024 because "balance concerns" or because "it's too much work" doesn't mean the entire concept of "5.5" is bad and won't work. They already said the 2024 books will have guides for converting older character options and features when-needed. Imo if a DM can't have fun working with their players on those adjustments then they may want to re-examine their approach go DMing. Min-maxer players going out of their way to make broken combos are just problem players who will always exist in 5E. Blaming the system for being abused by problem players is kinda backwards imo. Also again they may not have confirmed it specifically, but I *personally* think they have made it clear that everything that is included in the 2024 books is intended to replace everything from the 2014. The only stuff truly intended to "move forward" is the stuff either left out of the 2024 books, or just the stuff from the non-core 5E books that already exist. I do think there is alot of clarification needed considering how much (imo unwarranted) confusion has popped up surrounding all of this.

Just in the recent info about Paladins, we can see that even in the most basic ways, these two "versions of 5e" are not really compatible. I think the thing that best illustrates that point is the Paladin, specifically Divine Smite. In 5e, Divine Smite is a Paladin class feature that allows you to spend spell slots to put out extra damage. But it's not a spell. It's an ability. Yes, there are smite spells, but they are different. In One D&D/5.5e/2024 D&D, Divine Smite is now a spell. Worse yet, like the smite spells of 5e, it requires a bonus action to cast. This means you can only smite once per turn, a restriction the 5e Paladin did not have. They could smite on opportunity attacks, or on every attack of their 5th level Polearm Master attack sequence.

I’m not bothered by what Jeremy says is possible options for players. All that matters in my games is what I allow as the DM. If I decide to allow 2014 options they will get only the features that are listed in the 2014 PHB. No weapon mastery for 2014 player options in my games. Also no switching of weapons in the same attack action with multiple attacks. Honestly, unless you are involved in organised play, the game is open for the DM to mould into the way they like.

This is classic Microsoft tactic called "Embrace, extend, and extinguish". In this case, the system adds popular weapon masteries from Pathfinder and Alkander's Almanac, to prevent people from switching away from DnD. Other systems thus gain fewer followers, until their relative size becomes an issue, and they collapse and disappear, and then only DnD remains for the consumer to choose from. Really good read about this shtity tactic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish Think about it: Are you running a computer that is a "PC"? Is your operating system called "Windows"? Do you use the Microsoft Office suite (Word, Excel, etc)? Did you consider other computer platforms, OSes, or office software, or did your Windows PC "just happen"? This is how a (near) monopoly works, and this is the sad road ahead for DnD, and for the rest of the RPG and TTRPG community, Beware!

Definitely living up to the lawyer, I think it was clear that you can't mix character options from 2014 with 2024.

If I hadn't already move on from the OGL, this new edition would have broken me as a GM. I always felt like I was never supported by the game rules and this makes it feel like WotC is feeding GM's to the dogs. No wonder its so hard finding a GM for D&D.

Wizards of the Coast not balancing their game and putting all the work on the Dungeon Master? I'm shocked! Well, not that shocked.

Ah, yes, my favorite part of DnD tabletop gameplay - debating about what WOTC meant by writing "XYZ" or not writing "ABC" in their book. Now with even more stuff to debate about!

I have full faith that old subclasses will technically work with the new core classes but they will definitely be comparatively weak. It's really annoying how many subclasses needed updates yet WotC threw in a bunch of barely changed Tasha's subclasses.

11:58 well we are talking about the class that forced proficiency to be int based so they could be good at them without having to commit. After all what uses wisdom is clearly "druid stuff the wizard isnt gonna use, like survival". Wotc caller wizards of the coast had a clear bias.

This is such a nonissue. You want 2014 class/race options - you're limited to those. You want 2024 class/race options, you're limited to those. Then just declare the 2014 spells defunct and you're golden.

This current version of 5.5e is just the worst of both worlds. The initial desire for "5e compatibility" hamstrung their balance attempts, but the end result is clearly not actually compatible. A clean break with 5e would have allowed them to make a new version that is actually properly balanced regarding character options (because you really can't call a game that features both the monk and the paladin in their current state "balanced", let alone the spellcasters) and allows easy encounter building with respect to how people _actually_ play the game (not 3-4 players with 6-8 encounters per adventuring day like WotC imagines it).

Having everything free and legal online is one of if not the biggest reason why I will never go back to D&D. Having it in such a great searchable, filterable, hyperlinked, format is even better.

No big surprice that WotC is making a mess of this. They managed to get rid of all their most talented game designers. The 2014 5e D&D was not perfect, but not a bad game. I'm still playing 5e, but only to finish a campaign I'm curretly running, and I won't buy the new books. Can't find any reason why I should.

I like the idea of giving the guardian that taunt had something like "if your opponent didn't hit you, (missing is not hitting) you get a +N on the next round to hit or something.... So you could build like a guardian with a Warhammer, and still be that taunting guy, but if you succeed on being hard to hit or is ignored you give the enemy a good black eye....i am thinking guardians form flesh and blood and not just "i have a shield " the class, a shield should be in the power fantasy but idk I like the idea of a reward even if just a 1+ on 1 attack

It was already clear during the test runs that if they kept backwards compatible it would be a dud for me. too many broken things wouldn't get fixed or required changes (single class dips - martial disbalance) wouldn't be possible while keeping the old books relevant. I had rather seen a new edition or forced errata's and not this half stumble forward. New things are great, but the foundation can't support it

Most name I have see used the most is 2024 D&D. The people that I have see using 5.5e was either before WotC had said what they would call the new system or by people that dislike D&D. You 100% decide for yourself want to allow in your home game. It's not like WotC is doing to send Pinkerton to force you to allow all the old subclass or spells, but the old subclasses and spells are compatible with the new book if you wish to use them, but if the spell has a version in the new book you should use the new version. If you have an old character you can keep it as it is or convert to the new rules. If you make a new character you should use the new rules, but you it's possible to use old subclasses that doesn't have a version in the new rules. There are new versions of all the feats that superseed old ones for characters made with the new rules. It's not possible to use an old class with a new subclass or feat. You can't dip one level to get a subclass in new edition. The subclasses have been standardised, so you don't get them until 3rd level. Silvery barbs was always a spell from the Strixhaven setting. I know that some DM allowed the spell the other settings, but it was never a spell that officially a part of D&D other than in Strixhaven,

wanting to homebrew away MAP is just insane lol

Im not sure why GMs would not just work with their table to balance their unique game. No table HAS to use any rule. A TTRPG is not supposed to be balanced. It's supposed to allow each table to tell the stories they want.

The only interpretation I can imagine that makes sense without creating massive headache is this: -A character built in 2014 must use class and subclass rules from 2024. A character built in 2024 must use rules from the 2024 edition. You can't mix and match anything. -Spells and feats are "rules" and you have to use their updated versions. What is still frustrating about this is, as you correctly point out, it means that any attempt at balance fixing any problematic classes or subclasses (e.g. Twilight Cleric) simply doesn't work because players can circumvent those changes by using the broken 2014 versions anyway. I have to imagine the only way this is going to work is if WotC publishes a detailed compatibility guide. I think a lot of DMs are probably just going to say f--- this, you can't use 2014 anything in my game. Backwards compatibility was always a terrible idea and this might be one of the worst versions of it. My impression from earlier was that backwards compatibility was meant to apply essentially to adventure modules: That you could run a 2024 party through Curse of Straud and the adventure should more or less play correctly and the encounters should be more or less balanced.

I will playtest 5.5, but it's not my turn to GM this version. I don't see a reason to buy or run it.

WotC want to have their cake and sell it too. Since they didn't do a lot of nerfing, allowing old player options probably won't be a balance issue, but it does undermine the purpose of fixing disruptive player options if you're just going to tell everyone to keep using those disruptive options.

I banned 5.5 from my games, not because I'm afraid of anything being overpowered but because most of it being a bunch of nerfs and it not actually being backwards compatible, I'm not afraid of silvery barbs or any other spell or any feature, I've never been afraid of any "broken" build as long they aren't metagaming to do it, ect. I just want everything to be the best possible version and what actually makes sense, is in actually better and not "for the health of the game", fun and realism is top priority for me, I never nerf or ban anything, I only buff things. I only ban things when it wouldn't make sense in a certain setting, like a Kalashtar in anywhere else but Eberron, but I also keep things like sunlight sensitivity because it doesn't make sense that drow npcs have it but players don't for some reason, the same goes for yuan-ti purebloods because I refuse to nerf them and call them just yuan-ti when we have pureblood npc statblocks that have the full magic resistance and poison immunity, you're allowed to make as many simulacrums as you want if you can do it within he limits of the rules, but you're gonna have a hard time doing it when I don't skip time just so you can make an army of yourself or whoever or whatever and if I want to there's plenty of easy ways to get rid of a simulacrum. I'm the DM, I have the power over everything, so I don't have to worry about anything because I make all the encounters, I also don't want my players casting hold person on githzerai that is actually supposed to be a githzerai but the spell not working because it's type was changed to abberation with no explanation even to me on the statblock while the spell would work on a player githzerai. Tld;dr You ban 5E because you're afraid of your players and don't know how to run the game without nerfing everything, I banned 5.5 because I like my players having better options and realistic variety and features that aren't actually broken due to 5.5 not actually working as advertised.

They should just call it New DnD, not 2014 and 2024 it's so annoying, either way, I have just two games remaining of DnD and I can't wait to end them and focus all in to Pathfinder 2e. I think they don't want to say this book replaces the old books because they want to keep selling those... greedy rats.

"Only content from the 2024 PHB is allowed" Done. Fixed all of these problems with 0 issue and little stress or headache.

I know im reading a little bit into what hes saying but it seems really obvious to me that hes referring to options that DONT appear in the new players handbook (for example the necromancer subclass for Wizards) This is also supported by the wording of Adventurers League rules in which if a rule is reprinted you always use the most updated version. Seems like common sense to me but 🤷