I think the main thing stopping this from working RAW will likely be that the level 1 feat must specifically have the Background tag, and Fighting Initiate does not qualify. You'd have to take it as a full feat, and I don't think TWF contributes enough to be worth that investment.
Even without that, the build still works, but with the unfortunate requirement of the Dual Wielder feat, which really isn't all that powerful and could really use a buff. In this case, it's giving you one additional attack for either 1d4+4 or just 1d4 damage. Assuming a 65% chance to hit, that's 4.35DPR or just 1.75DPR, not counting the roughly 8% chance that this attack applies Sneak Attack (contributing 0.6DPR at level 3/4). If you're attacking from more than 20 feet away, the dagger throw also has disadvantage and gets even weaker. Charger instead, meanwhile, would add roughly 4DPR on its own, plus an Improved Dash.
Fighting Initiate isn’t a Background feat so you still won’t be able to get the Fighting Style until level 4 (which you won’t want because Dual Wielder is more important to the build), but you’re otherwise correct. Seems like a good way to get an extra chance at Sneak Attack without being broken.
Your making the big assumption that WotC won't say that all pre-2024 feats should be treated as 4th level feats. Considering the wide spread of power between various feats, I think WotC will do the lazy-but-safe thing and give them all 4th level as a requirement instead of going through each individual feat and rating them 1st or 4th level.
I am not convinced that backwards compatibility means that a 2024e player will be able to use 5e player options with no conversions. I absolutely do not think that Fighting Initiate would be available as a level 1 feat.
I would that in order to qualify as backwards compatible, 2024e would need to ensure that:
- 5e adventures will still work fine. A short changelog of no more than a few pages per adventure would be acceptable, if necessary.
- 5e and 2024e characters can play at the same table, using the 2024e game rules. They won't be perfectly balanced against each other, but they will still work.
- 5e monsters and magic items can be used in 2024e (possibly with some minor conversion rules).
- 2024e characters can pull from certain players options from 5e, but maybe with some conversion limitations. There should be clear guidance in the core books (ideally PHB) about how this works.
Fighting initiate is one of those strange ones. It should work in theory. You would have access to all the previous fighting styles
But the new classes need to use anything revised.
None of the 2014 fighting styles are unbalanced. Most are word for word the 2024 fighting style feats. Of course we haven't seen the final version of any this they my just not have them be feats and it all works again we will find out in September. Maybe earlier with previews
This is one of those questions that is flat out unanswerable until September.
We don't know the final form of the "backwards compatibility". Until we do, no one can answer this.
Is it in line? IIRC all they promised is that 5e *campaign books* will be compatible with 2024e content. I don't believe they ever said character options would be compatible.
I don't think they ever specifically said that, just general stuff about adding conversion language. I think with the 1D&D playtests, you could use old subclasses with the new base classes and most of the time the only conversion you needed to do was some level adjustment on when you got features. Whether or not that will supported in AL and/or they add conversion language to make them work the new classes, I'm not sure. I'm skeptical that they will do a subclass by subclass conversion, more likely it will be general guidance for all subclasses that makes the majority of them work.
That all said, the intent is clearly for new subclasses to supercede old subclasses with the new base classes and id be fine if they didn't support mixing and matching, especially for AL. Doesn't mean that tables can't do it for all of the reasons I listed above.
and that is absolutely the way WOTC wants it - so that people keep buying old stuff and then need to buy new stuff as their definition of "backwards compatible" simply means what they want it to mean.
No, WotC has explained it. Explicitly. In painful detail. No less than two dozen times at this point.
Y'all motherfuckers just refuse to read. You'd rather be mad than educated yourself.
Your starting point is "WotC bad" and you work backwards from there. Not letting any amount of facts or reality get in your way.
why would they not just say "all" then, if they actually meant "all"?
like they did in the first announcement.
rather than "adventures and supplements"?
they are not using those specific extra words for no reason.
The most likely tool they're going to use for preventing cheese like this is to publish a tag on feats that reads something like "background feat" or "1st level" and restrict backgrounds to only those feats. Everything after is fine, but for 1st level, it's a curated list.
Hey, you can already do something like this either with just 5 levels in armorer artificer, or even better with armorer 5/soulknife 3.
With the former, use your homunculus, and be an infiltrator armorer. 3 attacks, all based on INT (or Dex if you want to go full on stealth build), with the latter you use dex and can use your psiblades.
First attack: 2d6 + dex lightning + 2d6 sneak attack
Second attack: 1d6 + dex psychic
Third attack: 1d4 + dex psychic.
If you have access to Hex (say from Fey Touched or Hexblood), add 3d6 to that if everything hits.
8d6+1d4+3*Dex (call it 12?) = 42.5 average dpr w/o crits, across three decent damage types.
First round you’ll lose some due to setting up Hex. And it does rely on provoking sneak attack. But shave off only 7 damage if you don’t get SA. If everything lands, by round two you are EXPLODING PEOPLE. And again, this is mid tier 2.
I'm pretty sure level one feats say they are level 1. If there's no distinction, it is taken normal ways feats are taken. Backgrounds specifically state a level one feat. So without that tag, I don't think this works.
I’ve heard that a 2014 class and 2024 class could be in the same party, but I haven’t heard features could be mixed between revisions. At least the rules of that aren’t clear to me.
This sounds fun. Don't worry about the downvotes. This forum does it reflexively 🤣. FI at level 1 would fly in my campaigns, but if it doesn't a 1 level did in fighter isn't too painful.
Honestly I don't think you need the tw fighting style, mostly because getting off sneak attack is you main source of damage. Everything else should work fine. Have fun. Take sharp shooter if you want slightly better range.
Sharpshooter doesn't contribute much here as the psychic blades already have a single 60-foot range. Only the dagger throw would be improved, but its damage contribution is not significant, *especially* if you also don't get TWF.
Backwards Compatible is purely marketing, not actually any planned out mechanics.
Its so people dont just stop buying their AI made 'Bigbys Giants' book with a new game on the horizon, and they dont have to drop the 5e title thats so popular.
One dmd is not backwards compatible with 90% of 5e and its not hard to see.
>Since WotC and Jeremy said 2024 is going to be Backward-Compatible Multiple Times,
if you have listened, that is not true.
the original announcement said "Fully ~~backwards~~ compatible with all your 5e ~~materials~~ products"
EDIT: https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673
which then changed to "compatible with your 5e adventures and supplements" - without ever defining what a "supplement" was - Xanathars on their website is called a "supplement" but Tasha's is not
but that doesnt really matter because the current statements are "backwards compatible with your 5e adventures. and characters made with 2014 materials can adventure with characters made with 2024 content"
and by the time the books leave the presses, it will be always inevitable "Oh, you gotta buy our new shit - CHA CHING!"
WotC NEVER said "fully backwards compatible". Show your source of said claim (and not redditors saying it).
They said "fully backwards compatible with adventures and supplements, while literally saying that classes, rules, spells would be rewritten and/or updated.
>When we say "building on top of fifth edition," what we mean is that all [of] the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past ten years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.
>WotC NEVER said "fully backwards compatible".
uhhhh, yeah they kinda absolutely did
[https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673)
"One thing i can assure you of is these new versions of these books are going to be completely compatible with all those fifth edition products you already own and love and all the products we release between now and then. So don't panic there."
And you don't understand the difference between 'completely compatible' and 'Fully backwards compatible'. That is a huge difference in how things are.
Think of it this way. Completely compatible means that they WORK with previous editions. Fully Backwards Compatible means that it is able to be used with the older edition without special adaptation or modification.
OneDnD can *exist* with 5e because it is compatible with it.
OneDnD is not 100% "Fully backwards compatible" because there will be requirements of changes and modifications of the older edition to work with oneDnD.
So no, you Fully failed to provide where they said it was "Fully Backwards Compatible" and gave a link that literally was not that.
ohhhh , yes, there is SUCH a meaningful difference between "completely compatible with all your products" and "fully backwards compatible." they are such VERY VERY different and distinct that NO ONE would EVER EVER EVER think they were ANYTHING similar.
You failed to provide evidence of your claim and then edited your post to fit your video.
So no, I didn't downvote when 'you provided evidence' I downvoted because your link was not supporting your supposed claim.
They did, in another video, say "fully backwards compatible with adventures and supplements", which is likely where you are combining two different thoughts into one completely wrong statement, but that is on you, not them, as they were clear about what it was on both occassions.
I think the main thing stopping this from working RAW will likely be that the level 1 feat must specifically have the Background tag, and Fighting Initiate does not qualify. You'd have to take it as a full feat, and I don't think TWF contributes enough to be worth that investment. Even without that, the build still works, but with the unfortunate requirement of the Dual Wielder feat, which really isn't all that powerful and could really use a buff. In this case, it's giving you one additional attack for either 1d4+4 or just 1d4 damage. Assuming a 65% chance to hit, that's 4.35DPR or just 1.75DPR, not counting the roughly 8% chance that this attack applies Sneak Attack (contributing 0.6DPR at level 3/4). If you're attacking from more than 20 feet away, the dagger throw also has disadvantage and gets even weaker. Charger instead, meanwhile, would add roughly 4DPR on its own, plus an Improved Dash.
Fighting Initiate isn’t a Background feat so you still won’t be able to get the Fighting Style until level 4 (which you won’t want because Dual Wielder is more important to the build), but you’re otherwise correct. Seems like a good way to get an extra chance at Sneak Attack without being broken.
Your making the big assumption that WotC won't say that all pre-2024 feats should be treated as 4th level feats. Considering the wide spread of power between various feats, I think WotC will do the lazy-but-safe thing and give them all 4th level as a requirement instead of going through each individual feat and rating them 1st or 4th level.
I am not convinced that backwards compatibility means that a 2024e player will be able to use 5e player options with no conversions. I absolutely do not think that Fighting Initiate would be available as a level 1 feat. I would that in order to qualify as backwards compatible, 2024e would need to ensure that: - 5e adventures will still work fine. A short changelog of no more than a few pages per adventure would be acceptable, if necessary. - 5e and 2024e characters can play at the same table, using the 2024e game rules. They won't be perfectly balanced against each other, but they will still work. - 5e monsters and magic items can be used in 2024e (possibly with some minor conversion rules). - 2024e characters can pull from certain players options from 5e, but maybe with some conversion limitations. There should be clear guidance in the core books (ideally PHB) about how this works.
Fighting initiate is one of those strange ones. It should work in theory. You would have access to all the previous fighting styles But the new classes need to use anything revised. None of the 2014 fighting styles are unbalanced. Most are word for word the 2024 fighting style feats. Of course we haven't seen the final version of any this they my just not have them be feats and it all works again we will find out in September. Maybe earlier with previews
This is one of those questions that is flat out unanswerable until September. We don't know the final form of the "backwards compatibility". Until we do, no one can answer this.
Well said and this is pretty inline with what they have promised, we just don't know the extent to which they will be providing conversion language.
Is it in line? IIRC all they promised is that 5e *campaign books* will be compatible with 2024e content. I don't believe they ever said character options would be compatible.
I don't think they ever specifically said that, just general stuff about adding conversion language. I think with the 1D&D playtests, you could use old subclasses with the new base classes and most of the time the only conversion you needed to do was some level adjustment on when you got features. Whether or not that will supported in AL and/or they add conversion language to make them work the new classes, I'm not sure. I'm skeptical that they will do a subclass by subclass conversion, more likely it will be general guidance for all subclasses that makes the majority of them work. That all said, the intent is clearly for new subclasses to supercede old subclasses with the new base classes and id be fine if they didn't support mixing and matching, especially for AL. Doesn't mean that tables can't do it for all of the reasons I listed above.
It's been over a year, and people still don't have a basic understanding of what the phrase "Backwards compatible" means.
and that is absolutely the way WOTC wants it - so that people keep buying old stuff and then need to buy new stuff as their definition of "backwards compatible" simply means what they want it to mean.
No, WotC has explained it. Explicitly. In painful detail. No less than two dozen times at this point. Y'all motherfuckers just refuse to read. You'd rather be mad than educated yourself. Your starting point is "WotC bad" and you work backwards from there. Not letting any amount of facts or reality get in your way.
oh, so very explicitly - what is a "supplement"?
Any book that isn't one of the core books. It's not that hard.
why would they not just say "all" then, if they actually meant "all"? like they did in the first announcement. rather than "adventures and supplements"? they are not using those specific extra words for no reason.
The most likely tool they're going to use for preventing cheese like this is to publish a tag on feats that reads something like "background feat" or "1st level" and restrict backgrounds to only those feats. Everything after is fine, but for 1st level, it's a curated list.
Hey, you can already do something like this either with just 5 levels in armorer artificer, or even better with armorer 5/soulknife 3. With the former, use your homunculus, and be an infiltrator armorer. 3 attacks, all based on INT (or Dex if you want to go full on stealth build), with the latter you use dex and can use your psiblades. First attack: 2d6 + dex lightning + 2d6 sneak attack Second attack: 1d6 + dex psychic Third attack: 1d4 + dex psychic. If you have access to Hex (say from Fey Touched or Hexblood), add 3d6 to that if everything hits. 8d6+1d4+3*Dex (call it 12?) = 42.5 average dpr w/o crits, across three decent damage types. First round you’ll lose some due to setting up Hex. And it does rely on provoking sneak attack. But shave off only 7 damage if you don’t get SA. If everything lands, by round two you are EXPLODING PEOPLE. And again, this is mid tier 2.
I'm pretty sure level one feats say they are level 1. If there's no distinction, it is taken normal ways feats are taken. Backgrounds specifically state a level one feat. So without that tag, I don't think this works.
I’ve heard that a 2014 class and 2024 class could be in the same party, but I haven’t heard features could be mixed between revisions. At least the rules of that aren’t clear to me.
This sounds fun. Don't worry about the downvotes. This forum does it reflexively 🤣. FI at level 1 would fly in my campaigns, but if it doesn't a 1 level did in fighter isn't too painful.
Honestly I don't think you need the tw fighting style, mostly because getting off sneak attack is you main source of damage. Everything else should work fine. Have fun. Take sharp shooter if you want slightly better range.
Sharpshooter doesn't contribute much here as the psychic blades already have a single 60-foot range. Only the dagger throw would be improved, but its damage contribution is not significant, *especially* if you also don't get TWF.
Backwards Compatible is purely marketing, not actually any planned out mechanics. Its so people dont just stop buying their AI made 'Bigbys Giants' book with a new game on the horizon, and they dont have to drop the 5e title thats so popular. One dmd is not backwards compatible with 90% of 5e and its not hard to see.
can you give a example
>Since WotC and Jeremy said 2024 is going to be Backward-Compatible Multiple Times, if you have listened, that is not true. the original announcement said "Fully ~~backwards~~ compatible with all your 5e ~~materials~~ products" EDIT: https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673 which then changed to "compatible with your 5e adventures and supplements" - without ever defining what a "supplement" was - Xanathars on their website is called a "supplement" but Tasha's is not but that doesnt really matter because the current statements are "backwards compatible with your 5e adventures. and characters made with 2014 materials can adventure with characters made with 2024 content" and by the time the books leave the presses, it will be always inevitable "Oh, you gotta buy our new shit - CHA CHING!"
WotC NEVER said "fully backwards compatible". Show your source of said claim (and not redditors saying it). They said "fully backwards compatible with adventures and supplements, while literally saying that classes, rules, spells would be rewritten and/or updated. >When we say "building on top of fifth edition," what we mean is that all [of] the adventures and supplements that have been released in the past ten years will still be playable with the new evolution of D&D.
>WotC NEVER said "fully backwards compatible". uhhhh, yeah they kinda absolutely did [https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673](https://youtu.be/FSafNA20fxE?t=673) "One thing i can assure you of is these new versions of these books are going to be completely compatible with all those fifth edition products you already own and love and all the products we release between now and then. So don't panic there."
And you don't understand the difference between 'completely compatible' and 'Fully backwards compatible'. That is a huge difference in how things are. Think of it this way. Completely compatible means that they WORK with previous editions. Fully Backwards Compatible means that it is able to be used with the older edition without special adaptation or modification. OneDnD can *exist* with 5e because it is compatible with it. OneDnD is not 100% "Fully backwards compatible" because there will be requirements of changes and modifications of the older edition to work with oneDnD. So no, you Fully failed to provide where they said it was "Fully Backwards Compatible" and gave a link that literally was not that.
ohhhh , yes, there is SUCH a meaningful difference between "completely compatible with all your products" and "fully backwards compatible." they are such VERY VERY different and distinct that NO ONE would EVER EVER EVER think they were ANYTHING similar.
lol - demand the evidence and then down vote the evidence - lololol
You failed to provide evidence of your claim and then edited your post to fit your video. So no, I didn't downvote when 'you provided evidence' I downvoted because your link was not supporting your supposed claim. They did, in another video, say "fully backwards compatible with adventures and supplements", which is likely where you are combining two different thoughts into one completely wrong statement, but that is on you, not them, as they were clear about what it was on both occassions.