The Future of D&D - ONE D&D Reaction/Impressions

[@WASD20]

NOTES & CORRECTIONS: Ardlings: I think may be wrong about Ardlings REPLACING Aasimar. That's something I assumed, but I don't actually see that noted anywhere. Spells: I also assumed the new spell divisions (primal, divine, arcane) would replace the class spell lists, but I don't see that actually spelled out anywhere either. Playtest: Unearthed Arcana is always playtest material, and they want player feedback. Just because it's here, doesn't mean it will stick for the rules revision. LEAVE FEEDBACK once that opens up in September.

[@AbeH]

You also said that you hoped that they would include digital with physical before 2023 and the new Dragonlance book realecing in December will.

[@AoAD]

Crawford did say in the video about One DnD that the the two are cousin races. This whole thing is supposed to be designed and compatible with older books, especially Monsters of the Multiverse, so they're going to exist side by side with each other.

[@WASD20]

@@AoAD yeah, it'll just be interesting to see which races make the revised PHB and which they'll withold for later book releases.

[@maddym.5466]

Pretty sure it was said that Ardlings are more like an addition, like a cousin of sorts to Aasimar, but not replacing them.

[@ericpeterson8732]

They are trying to pre-emptively de-escalate the inevitable edition conflict. Whenever a new edition comes out, WOTC loses a fraction of their players. Some people stayed with 2e instead of advancing to 3e. Some people stayed with 3e or 3.5e instead of moving to 4th edition. We call those pathfinder players. When 5e came out, some players preferred to stay with 4e. It's human nature. The more money you spent on the previous edition, the less likely you are to change to a new edition. Now 5e was an interesting experiment because they recruited the community to serve as playtesters which served as a trial/getting to know you period with the new rules. That helped with buy-in. Then they actively worked to include the elements of the previous editions to bring those players back to D&D. This, I see, is more of the same. By de-emphasizing the word edition, they can make a bunch of new rules changes and as long as it is still backwards compatible with Tasha's and Xanathar's and Fizban's, etc. They can still call it the same edition. You can't control language. Ultimately the players are going to decide what this is called.

[@tobybigham4196]

The old Dungeons and Dragons business model that I watched growing up was never going to work with the advent of the internet. Free access to information is just to hard to work into that model. It worked well in the 80's and 90's when I first became interested in Table Top Games, but it lost a lot of luster going into the early 2000's. However, I have recently came back into DnD 5E and I love how things are setup and work. This is the time to study the Video Game business model, and the Phone App business model, and learn how to leverage those to keep your company in business and relevant. I love that they are still putting out content and maintaining it, but now they need to review subscription based models. They need to concentrate on getting people into their online networks in order to keep people updated and informed, with new content. I think they should concentrate on getting people to buy in once for base materials and rules. The current 5E buy-in for getting your core books should be a good start. When you want expansions rules or modules those can be individually priced. However, there should be a monthly subscription with real advantages. Take for instance, access to all new updated core content and the ability to use it in a (forward and backwards compatible) fashion for individual games. But you can also offer discounts to subscription holders, or occasional free content. This could really generate from great revenue!

[@nickopetra]

Because every set of books plays exactly the same way

[@GrognardPiper]

Some of us stuck with 1E!

[@rosariomaltese]

The more I see this marketing model disguised as cultural shift the more I see people going back to older editions.

[@thehedgehogdriver4591]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea of splitting ability scores and races, because being of a certain race will give bonuses to certain things, period. For example, a giant goliath is automatically going to be stronger than a halfling or a human at a base level. It's just how their bodies are. And wanting to break stereotypes for the fun and play a half-orc wizard, gives the cool innate challenge of that character having to overcome stereotypically lower intelligence (although half-orcs don't have reduced intelligence). Having to work around those innate disadvantages creates challenges and conflict ingrained in the character which is what a good character has, rather than having everything go well for them. It's why we roll for stats instead of taking 18s in everything. Part of why nontypical combinations (such as the half-orc wizard) are cool and intriguing, is because they don't have an innate advantage in being a wizard (and shows that the player is doing it for the roleplay rather than optimization). If suddenly a half-orc can take a +2 to intelligence, there isn't that appeal to playing nontypical characters (like the half-orc wizard) because then the race is only cosmetic. Race isn't a cosmetic in real life or in D&D which is why a bear in either, is stronger than a wolf.

[@WASD20]

Totally logical argument! I get it. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on the whole thing. Mixed feelings.

[@ilseh95]

The middle would probably be good: like 1 ability score improvement from race and 1 from class. And if they are the same for both race and class than you get to shift it another ability or something.

[@MkSkribble]

Honestly the disadvantages and weaknesses things have are what makes them actually interesting and why I use a stand array for a character stats, I use 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 16 giving a character a wide range of weaknesses and strengths

[@blackhawk8920]

@@ilseh95 why not keep both so its synergized. I like both class and race give stat changes both positive and negative.

[@InhabitantOfOddworld]

Definitely this. In nearly every roleplay scenario, the point of choosing a race is for the inherent cost-benefit system. It's just the same in games; in Elder Scrolls, races have an impact, not just cosmetic. And as mentioned, picking a less-able race provides challenge. Whoever is making these amendments to the D&D rules is making a bad call.

[@Lord_Lambert]

One of the things that stood out to me, as I am currently playing as a tiefling in the campaign I play in, was this line "Thanks to the victories and sacrifices of these legends, tieflings throughout the multiverse enjoy widespread acceptance." Like, obviously every table has a DM who can decide exactly how each race is perceived in every single nation in their world. But I absolutely think something is lost with tieflings losing their persecuted-ness I think it is far easier and more reasonable to keep that element of the race intact in the core rules, and for individual DMs, if they so choose, to scrap that, than it is for the widespread acceptance to be a part of the rules, and then individual DMs saying "actually no racism is a thing" And it feels like everythings just being kind of homogenised and that's not a positive in my eyes I dont think there was anything wrong with racial stat bonus'. A Goliath getting a boost to strength inherently is perfectly fine, or an elf with a bonus to dex. Some tweaking could certainly be done ofc cause it didnt make a ton of sense in every single case, but removing it completely is just.. weird. Gnomes aint as strong as Goliaths... that should be plainly obvious.

[@blackhawk8920]

yep I like classes and/or backgrounds giving different stats positive and/or negative but along with races. Bunny's should not have the same stats as an elephant.

[@PatrickSamphire]

My concern would be that, with taking ability score bonuses away from races and removing class-specific spell lists, the race and class become more superficial and everything becomes more amorphous. A dwarf becomes not so different from a barbarian or a halfling. A wizard isn't really different from a sorcerer. And so on. Everything becomes like a Star Trek alien: a person with a rubber suit on.

[@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115]

All according to the plan. Just as with gender, human races, etcetera.

[@heroofRaven]

@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 this person gets it. Bravo

[@PatrickSamphire]

@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 Take your nonsense elsewhere.

[@trevordavis6830]

The way I interpreted the changes to spell lists was that while classes share the same base spell list, classes/subclasses will have their own special list of spells they interact with. Like as a bard you can get a few spells from anywhere in the arcane spell list, but you'll also have a class list of spells that you are just flat out more proficient with spells(like friends or vicious mockery) than other arcane classes. Then if you pick a nature-themed subclass you'll get to pick spells from the primal spell list to use in your spell list. I also think the main reason they're dividing spells into specific type categories is because WoTC is planning on having more effects based around spell type. Like instead of just saying a devil creature is weak to radiant damage, WoTC can now also say that a devil is has disadvantage to all saving throws against divine spells. Or instead of having a magic item that only boosts classes x and y's spell list, it can now say it boosts all spells from the primal spell list so that way a sorcerer with a primal bloodline can also get the benefits from that magic item.

[@PatrickSamphire]

@@trevordavis6830 That makes more sense. Hopefully you're right.

[@keith0363]

I’m a guy who *loves* tech. I’m often an early adopter. Heck, I want to see the Internet become sentient. But I want D&D to be analog. I don’t want laptops and phones at the table. I want paper and pencil and Mountain Dew and Cheetos. To me, the game is at its best when it’s totally disconnected from reality.

[@simonsmasher1771]

i agree about the virtual tabletop, i prefer 2D like roll20 a lot more because it's so easy to build and forces you to imagine it yourself.

[@GendefectX]

would be cool if their version had a 2d option.. just the camera above the table

[@simonsmasher1771]

@@GendefectX yeah that'd be cool, but a good ole grid with hand drawings and tokens is just much simpler and better to me

[@blackhawk8920]

@@simonsmasher1771 it would be cool if they had 3d option and a simpler 2d grid with tokens options. I would use both.

[@Zakanuva]

...and now I'm even _more_ motivated to invest in OSR games instead. Thanks, WotC!

[@graycrest806]

Especially open source stuff! Contribution to a community sustained trpg is always great!

[@petespanchos]

Bye then.

[@chrisg1598]

My next campaign will definitely be an OSR game.

[@graycrest806]

@@chrisg1598 Heck yeah!

[@aikighost]

If you don't play Face to face your missing a good 50%+ what is most fun about RPGs IMHO.

[@Wauly]

The way I interpret "One D&D" and "It's just D&D" is that it would be ran like a service video game where anything they create in the future will be applicable to their "sole" edition and changes to the rules will act like a patch in a video game

[@yuvalgabay1023]

That sound horrible. This kind of patching cant work in a ttrpg. For me its sound like another corpo money squis

[@tdzbacon3640]

@@yuvalgabay1023 UNLESS you take it like this, new versions of the rules, function as optional replacements. You can play DND 5e, or you can play Modern DND. Since everything is compatible, then you can just play any version of the rules you want going forward.

[@yuvalgabay1023]

@@tdzbacon3640 the problems whit ubdating rules like a video games is a. Rules over load .b..books are now will be a scam. And c. Imagine finding a group and for the next 4 hours complaining what ubdate rule we use. And then whan you have to check the book you need to go throw 10 different books,and then whan new adventure you be like?so what version of the rules we use. In what part again .ttrpg and not videos games. You cant ubdate the rpg every few short years and not expect chaos. +you have the problem of adtion slowly breaking whit time because power scaling and other factor

[@p-thor]

DaaS - D&D as a Service. Yuck

[@pedro4205]

@@p-thor If the main books are one time buy than this isn't D&D as a service.

[@Krix6426]

The death of Theater of the Mind is a SAD thing & other massive amounts of potential are being lost.

[@TonyCrenshawsLatte]

One of the big changes in this UA document is that only player characters can land critical hits now, and only when it's a physical (weapon or unarmed) attack. So magical attacks cannot land critical hits even with a nat 20, and, more importantly, MONSTERS cannot land critical hits. Not a fan of this change.

[@slushisimcambi2521]

Eh I kinda disagree. Martial classes are more boring (& weaker) than casters as is, so having crits be exclusive makes them stronger and adds some depth relative to casters. Also having monsters be unable to crit really does help balance early encounters (as outlined in the video they posted). Like having an unlucky crit can instakill you against most boss enemies when you are under leveled. Eliminating crits allows for less variance when balancing encounters. Edit: to be clear, I think fighting enemies when underleved should still be challenging, just that the challenge should come from abilities and not a 1 in 20 chance to instantly get smote.

[@starwall8755]

I do like this change, half the caster damage options were already save based so they couldnt crit anyways.

[@blackhawk8920]

@@slushisimcambi2521 I think combat is in 5e is still to easy and to nerf it seems bad. I never had a player insta killed you need double the hp damage to do it unless you mean just death saving throws which is easy to beat.

[@larskrantz1463]

Like other people say, its IS a new edition. They just don't want people to stop buying the current edition while waiting for One D&D.

[@phloog]

FINALLY!!! As an overweight, bald dude, I'm glad I'll be able to finally play a grotesquely fat character! I know that as a member of the obese identity group, like all minorities, I have such a limited imagination that I can't feel included in a game that doesn't specifically show characters that have my physical characteristics.

[@leatherguru8904]

I'm going to take this post as a pun. It's ones own fault that in an imaginary game one cannot imagine.

[@phloog]

@@leatherguru8904 I believe you have interpeted it in the spirit that was intended.

[@leatherguru8904]

@@phloog ROFL

[@MA-oz2rn]

Bet you a hundred bucks in virtual tabletop will be stuffed with microtransactions.

[@therocketboost]

D&D always has been for everyone. (Clarification: So there's no reason it somehow needed to be fixed to become accomodating because it already was! WOTC's sentiment is pretty damn insulting to the decades of existing players.)

[@Ashtor1337]

Yup!!!

[@LolDongs69]

It's looking less and less like it's for me, to be honest. Luckily there are plenty of other systems to try out. So they can't "gatekeep" me out of my own damned hobby entirely.

[@Snyperwolf91]

When something is for everyone , its actually for no one .

[@Mazer2721]

They don't say it because they mean it or give a damn. They say it because it is expected to be said. Cynicism is the correct interpretation when companies talk like this.

[@markbrown2206]

Sounds like they are getting rid of what some people call “biological essentialism”, you know that foolish idea that the average giant is in some way stronger and an average gnome. Or that dwarfs are naturally hardy and Elves are naturally graceful. Because everyone is the same and equal, because in the glorious republic of D&D a gnome can stand as tall as a hill giant. There are no heroes in D&D because even the innkeeper is as good as any player character. And in the next release we will be getting rid of levels and loot, because it’s unfair that a level 20 mage can do things that a level 1 mage cannot. And loot is just an expression of the capitalist overseers, that has oppressed our fellow workers for too long comrades. Workers of the far realms unite! Oh and don’t forget to pay your subscriptions and buy our books. I’ve played D&D and other TTRPGs for almost 50 years and never seen any gatekeeping (until now).

[@cosmiccowboy9358]

I honestly hate everything about it so far so we will stick with 5e or possibly go back to 3.5

[@garhent]

The spells lists, real bad idea there. The ability for any class to be a healer via feat,. real bad idea there. What makes the classes distinct and fun, time to remove that.

[@heroofRaven]

Yeah this is a waste will not be using any of these rules.

[@danddjacko]

I didn't like the way they described the Musician feat, why wouldn't a bard just be able to do that anyway? because he's a bard!

[@DouglasMaria]

Well Im old school not very estimulated on wasting my time on paying attention to which pronouns I should use....

[@tlinmer]

Par for the Reasoning as to why I stopped using the "Beyond Page" was due to the lack of physical bought product's not having a redemption code like many of their MTG product's have had. Why spend twice the money for half the fun...??

[@danddjacko]

I just wish that every class having magic would just go away 😢

[@dcred123]

"Dwarf kids are just as bright and talented as elf kids!"

[@RokuroCarisu]

And nobody ever said otherwise. Except for dwarves and elves.

[@GruntBurger]

@@RokuroCarisu And the actions of dwarves and elves...

[@Dick_Mustang]

🤣🤣🤣

[@melvintyndall6259]

and halflings are as strong as dwarves

[@DaDunge]

0:45 They're afraid of splitting the fanbase and that's why they have the line "It's just D&D"

[@coal.sparks]

From what Jeremy Crawford said in the interview I watched, Ardlings don't replace Aasimaar (or however it's spelled), but are in addition to (which is weird) and directly mirror the subdivisions they've added to tiefling (infernal, chthonic and abyssal), and are meant to be less angelic and more reflective of the animal-themed gods of older religions. Or something. One thing I *dislike* is that they want to do make it so you can only crit on a physical attack, not a spell-based one. It's unclear how that impacts the rogue's surprise attack features. Also, one thing I'm not sure you spotted in your scan through is that the backgrounds they list in the document are meant to be "examples' more than choices - people are encouraged to use the formula (+2 in one ability, +1 in another, a language, a feat, etc.) to design one that is appropriate to their character.

[@lukejackson3901]

They’re literally just a furry race haha not a bad thing, but I thought it was funny

[@0Fyrebrand0]

*Ardlings:* I think they're cool and will end up being pretty popular. Lots of potential for players to pick basically any animal theme they want, plus with the new methods for creating custom half-races you don't even have to go full-bore (or full boar?) on the animal head. You could just be a human or elf with horns, or antlers, a tail, sharp teeth, cat eyes, or whatever. Granted, we kind of already had that vibe in the Shifter race, but meh -- more options can't hurt! I kind of like the idea of a lion paladin, and the limited wings/flight would be thematic. It's pretty wild that you can potentially get Cure Wounds or Healing Word for free, no matter what class you are. *Critical Hits:* So many people seem to be freaking out that Sneak Attack and Smite will no longer get double-rolled on a crit, and I think that is a wild assumption to jump to. There is nothing to say these features can't benefit from a crit, and it would be extremely inelegant to go off on a tangent and list every single ability in the game that can be a critical hit when it's just meant to be a short blurb that defines the term. For all we know, the descriptions for Sneak Attack and Divine Smite will include language that clarifies they can crit. There is even reason to suspect Eldritch Blast will even be able to crit, as it does not appear on the Arcane spell list and has been speculated it will be redefined as a "class feature" of the Warlock rather than a spell. *Backgrounds:* You're absolutely right, they made it quite clear in the document and in the Jeremy Crawford video that they intend for you to create your own background and pick whatever parts/feats you want. It has ALWAYS worked this way, and it always surprised me how few people seem to know this.

[@Yabuturtle]

I always thought the best version would be if you combined the best parts of 3.5 and 5. 3.5 had a whole bunch of stuff to use and to do, but it could sometimes be needlessly complicated. 5e was a lot easier to get into and more simplified, but didn't have as much variety and certain things felt dumbed down. Both are great versions and the next one should have combined the best aspects of both versions.

[@WASD20]

I hear you! Kinda agree.

[@amarellaharte574]

You are referring to pathfinder 2e.

[@reallyjimreally8210]

I think any digital tabletop release will have serious issues with lag because when several thousand groups try to use their own 3D digital tabletop The servers will have problems.

[@madcapmagician3130]

No interest in digital, I play on a table looking into the faces of my friends, but I understand other opinions are valid.

[@UrbanSelfSufficiency]

Love playing in person, but digital is great for people whoes friends and family are in diffferent states/countries etc :)

[@pedro4205]

@@UrbanSelfSufficiency Since before the pandemic i have a group that we begun playing in the middle school and now some of us live even in another country. After the pandemic all my tables become online.

[@pedro4205]

But also, you can play with digital tools on person, this year one of my tables reunite for a presential session, we put a monitor in the middle of the table and everyone had roll20 open on their smartphone to make the rolls.

[@WASD20Live]

Yeah, digital isn’t for everyone, but overall I think the digital tools make the game more approachable. Ideally, they aren’t extra things to fiddle with, they actually streamline things. I think DND Beyond has done this well, especially with character creation for new players.

[@Ashtor1337]

My group is the same, if we can play in person we will but we keep the digital as a back up especially to keep everyone comfortable and safe.

[@DougCoughler]

The first 5e Dragonlance book has a bundle option that includes a DnDB version, but only if you buy from the official store. Shipping to Canada from the store is $43. Not worth it outside of the US.

[@meikahidenori]

I'd hate to find out how much it is to Australia. It's already ridiculous buying 2 versions if you want to use the app along side your books.

[@jmsimons777]

Yes, I was excited until I saw shipping to NZ. It would be good if they gave a code with the purchase with the book (a slight increase maybe). It could be similar to how you get MP3 codes when you purchase vinyl records.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

@@jmsimons777 Why can't they just have a printed code inside the book? Even Games Workshop does this with its Codices for WH40k now.

[@therocketboost]

@@CmdrPinkiePie "Money!" - *Mr. Krabs*

[@cooperb4449]

We have played 5e for 4 years now and we are going back to Advanced D&D.

[@pedro4205]

@benman Explain to me how AD&D isn't messier than 5e.

[@justashooter5051]

@@pedro4205 Right? I came to 5E from AD&D after a 25+ year break, and find the mechanics *much* better. I do think they shifted the power curve very much in favor of the PCs, and with that you lose much of the tension and excitement of AD&D. But I understand why they did it. I've been watching the Dungeon Craft channel, and am thinking about trying to use some of his ideas to make the game "grittier" (but not to the extreme he talks about in some of his videos).

[@ericcowles6518]

“Go ahead. Kill my character. I can roll another…”

[@pedro4205]

@@justashooter5051 I begin at AD&D and played every edition since. 3/3.5 was a big mess trying to have lots of traits to make a unique character, 4E was way better, making the system simple, 5e just clean a lot and give much freedom but maintaining a balanced gameplay between classes, specially at low levels, that were most of the people play anyway. But it truly is player favorable in lots of ways, but also are ways easy to modify cuz the system isn't a big bag of crazy rules.

[@GruntBurger]

@@pedro4205 that's just like, your opinion man. I also started with ad&d and worked through the systems. 3e and 3.5 was a complete rewrite and streamlined everything, adding a wealth of options for customization. Many folks would exploit this to make gods, but most people I played with frowned on that. 4e was an MMORPG on paper, but was fun in it's own way. Combat could be very strategic and engaging. 5e is completely watered down, but very accessable. People constantly argue that it's streamlined, and there's something to that, but the biggest argument I hear is that it places the emphasis on the rp aspects. Does it though? That's always been the part of the game that isn't codified. 5e feels more like a supplement library than an actual rulebook.

[@blallocompany]

This new living ruleset is a mistake. If content is backward compatible with older books then the company has a incentive to not entirely replace their content. This entails that when they will release the first expansions in 5.5, those books must by necessity share the the design space with the first expansions of 5.0, because they will cover the most needed topics left out of the player handbook. So what will happen is that the first expansions will be 50% the same content as stuff already present in the already available books and 50% different stuff with some gimmick to make it different than the original. So people that already have the previous books are buying half of the product since they already have the other half, while new players receive a book that is 50% useful and 50% gimmick. Furthermore, for almost the entire duration of the 5.5 there will be stuff that was available in 5.0 but it is half broken now, due to new rules. So if you want to make something that was available in the 5.0, you will have to use 3 different books with slightly incompatible stuff. in the end this added complications will reduce the people willing to buy stuff that is not the player manual, since expansions will be mostly useless, and they will be forced into a hard reset in 3-4 years after the release. I can't phantom how WOTC watched GW produce unbalanced and half broken games for 40 years with this exact design scheme and then thought "oh yeah, let us do that"

[@FMD-FullMetalDragon]

I'd say we have had 5.5 since Tasha's release and this "new" edition is just them compiling all the changes they have been doing since Tasha's into a revised core book.

[@pedro4205]

@@faenethlorhalien I don't think in it as dumping Tasha, if every race can choose +2&+1 or +1&+1&+1 so what's the difference between this and being background bound?

[@pedro4205]

Every race since Tasha has this in the ability score, how is this different of being a background related? Ability Scores: Choose one of: (a) Choose any +2; choose any other +1 (b) Choose any +1; choose any other +1; choose any other +1

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

@@faenethlorhalien The ability score bonuses are already at your own choosing after you pick a race right now. Tying them in to backgrounds that you CAN customize anyway only means extra fluff, it's not invalidating Tasha's. Functionally, it's the same.

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

Inspiration should be stackable but you lose it all by taking a long rest. This would encourage players to press their luck in an adventure rather than continuously taking long rests when their powers are only partially depleted.

[@WASD20]

Ooh. I like that. Possible new house rule. :)

[@ChristianIce]

This could encourage players to perform a lot of useless actions just to get to roll.

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

@@ChristianIce True. The DM could declare an action "minor" (ineligible for inspiration) if the players want to make frivolous rolls. Or, for frivolous actions, the DM simply narrates success or failure without allowing a roll.

[@ZendikarMage42750]

I really hate that they're thinking about moving ability score increases to backgrounds from races. Backgrounds are one of the main ways I determine how I roleplay my characters: I pick a background that fits with my initial character concept and use the character building stuff in the background to help determine how I'm going to act as that character. Having that tied to stats means I'm either going to be forced into playing the same kinds of characters for each class so I can make proper use of their abilities, which vastly reduces replayability; or take penalties to how effective my characters are which ruins the fantasy of playing each class in the first place. Also, am I really in the minority in thinking that martial classes are incredibly boring and spellcasting is on the whole quite clunky in 5th edition? Maybe it's just because it was the first roleplay system I even played, but I still really love how 4th edition did classes. Yeah the system had a lot of problems, but I really enjoyed how unique each of the classes felt.

[@emilymitchell6823]

The entire UA is focused on customising your own background entirely, or using the example backgrounds provided as jumping off points to customise. You can do more of whatever you want.

[@narcozero8410]

The backgrounds provided as an example are just sample backgrounds. You’re supposed to build your own. They state is clearly in the playtest pdf : « When you choose a Background, you have three options: • Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section. »

[@ZendikarMage42750]

@@emilymitchell6823 That's assuming you're not incredibly lazy like I am, heh heh. I like using the premade backgrounds as a guide for roleplaying. If I have to spend more time and work making that guide myself, that just sucks some of the fun out of playing the character for me. Also, I get more enjoyment out of coming up with a character concept than actually building them.

[@pedro4205]

@@ZendikarMage42750 I also enjoy playing a character with personality/background made by other more than building something, but with the ruleset to make backgrounds i think there will be lots of rule complaint backgrounds on the internet on the top of the sampled in the books

[@ZendikarMage42750]

@@pedro4205 Fair point, but it still feels like an extra hoop to jump through. I am petty though, and don't like it when things change without giving a large benefit to justify me learning something new when the old system worked fine, heh heh, and that may be clouding my judgment

[@azathothwakesup]

I must admit, I've been drifting away from the D&D system lately but this puts the last nail in the coffin for me. There are so many incredible new TTRPGs out there, WotC doesn't need my money for their D&D Infinity live service. Time to dive head first into the OSR scene I guess.

[@Snyperwolf91]

Its the best choice we people can make .

[@graycrest806]

Welcome to the OSR scene.

[@reidurbjorn]

Why revert to old school D&D when there are so many cool new games out there? There are so many great new mechanics that are more flexible than D20.

[@Decado1628]

I did the same and found Castles & Crusades. I feel like I am playing D&D again.

[@camahueto_AON]

What I understood of "One D&D" is that there isn't going to be "editions" of D&D, but "rolling rules"... They are not going to change everything at once, but one thing at a time

[@Shatterverse]

Replacing racial bonuses with background bonuses is fucking stupid. If they wanted that kind of thing they should have redone racial bonuses from the beginning to be mixable with background bonuses. They probably still should. A Goliath should still be stronger than a human on average by way of bonuses, for example.

[@davidarmstrong1617]

D&D One: Putting the "patronize" in Patron. I can tell right away that I'm not their target audience. I've been playing since first edition, and every edition up to date (not counting 4th - we don't talk about Bruno/4th edition), has been an improvement in some fashion or another. Thus far, this seems to be going the route of 4th edition - adding options while dumbing down the rules to cater to the lowest common denominator. I realize that this makes perfect sense from a business point of view, but it's not a flavor that appeals to me directly. So, my initial reaction is this: I'll pass. It doesn't appeal and I'm not interested. Of course, I realize that this is just a concept at the moment, a revision in its infancy, and I reserve the right to change my mind later when I have more information. But currently, I'm unimpressed.

[@neileddy6159]

This smells like rolling releases and them trying to capitalize on dndbeyond as a revenue stream beyond the books. That being said I have all of the books digitally in dnd beyond and all of my players have their sheets digitally and a device in front of them at the table. However, I am not going to discard maps and minis for a virtual table top, nor am I going to move to a remote environment except as an exception. The interpersonal reactions of players sitting next to each other while looking over a physical setting can't be cleanly replicated digitally. Something is lost in the transition. I have set up cameras and played virtually, but those sessions always have a delay and a small disconnect that I wouldn't default to unless I had to.

[@simmonslucas]

I love VTT, but I agree. I want to be able to draw and load that drawing into a VTT. I want my VTT to be a table top.

[@andyreichert499]

I really like streamlining, so unifying 20 rolls,, and the spell lists are good things. Inspiration on a 20 seems like one extra thing to remember, but will probably become second natures. I do really wish they could get rid of numbered spell levels since they don't line up with character levels. Or if you have to keep the number, don't call them levels but call them ranks or spheres or something els to not overload the word level.

[@WASD20]

Totally agree on spell levels.

[@euansmith3699]

I guess the D&D Team have finally had enough of people asking if an Attack Roll is an Attribute Roll. 😂

[@delenius1]

Hmm, unifying the spell lists seems more elegant, but it has some possibly bad side effects. Like, Druids will get the very rangery-y spells Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns etc; and Rangers get Thunderwave, Entangle... Bards will get Burning Hands and Witch Bolt, and so on.

[@SeleneSalvatore]

@@delenius1 In this way it be much harder for new players to comprehend the rules, mechanics and management of character that is complex enough. For me it enough material to learn and build character as is. With more division to race, class and background that mould your character like in real life. Tabaxi monk that lived as hermit should be totally different than far traveled Tifling bard to Gnome ranger that become folk hero.

[@J.B.90]

honestly I'm gonna stick to 5e probably forever. we largely play the cubicle 7 lotr modules. if I switch rpg systems from 5e, I'm probably gonna try out pathfinder.

[@kevinkingmaker7395]

D&D One will be completely compatible with 5e.

[@J.B.90]

@@kevinkingmaker7395 if it is 100% compatible, then what's the point? It may have backwards compatibility to some extent, but major rule changes will mean it isn't 100% compatible. I beleive it will have major changes, because they are having a longterm testing phase. They don't need a long term test just to reprint with faq and errata added. And if it does turn out to be minor changes that allow for true 100% back compatibility, then I have no need to add them in. To each their own, but I have high doubts that this isn't intended as a new edition to invalidate 5e and sell more product.

[@dogm40]

would be nice to some credit for the Physical book we already own.

[@Josanu2020]

I find it hilarious and ironic that pathfinder was built on what was good about 3.5 and that 5.5 seems to be borrowing was is good about pathfinder 2e. Including the virtual aspect pathfinder has been helping build demiplane since September 21.

[@maromania7]

I adore pathfinder, but the VTT is the one thing I won't say they copied. They've been trying something like this since 3e. Even if plans always fell through and we just ended up with a Character Builder on a CD and a promise of more to come.

[@Grayald]

Looks like I got out of D&D and started playing my own thing just in time.

[@kentjensen4504]

Your own thing? Elaborate?

[@mogy7331]

What's ur own thing?

[@Ashtor1337]

Yeah.

[@steelmongoose4956]

Young man, you just keep buying WotC products, no matter how cringey.

[@graycrest806]

I know what you mean. I've been exploring open source Trpgs and I've found some great OSR stuff. Went even further and got to make my own simplified, rules light and genre neutral trpg. Sometimes it's just fun when you're doing your own thing and you've got a group to do it with.

[@DKrappenschitz]

3E guy here, the change to modifiers is just a other reason to buy up old books and have fun with memories..

[@alexanderjohnson2309]

Dude that Gandalf joke was waaay too good. I stopped the video to laugh pretty hard. Lol

[@Decado1628]

After this announcement I am even more happy that I have made Castles & Crusades the primary system I use.

[@griselame]

so do I...made the jump 10 years ago and haven't looked back. If anything, it made me more conscious of the OSR & all the goodness you can find in there

[@NefariousKoel]

Or any other system of preference.

[@Decado1628]

@@griselame I wish Ihad looked at Castles & Crusades when it launched. I never would have switched to 3e.

[@Decado1628]

@@NefariousKoel Yep, there are some great systems out there.

[@griselame]

@@Decado1628 I discovered C&C after being severely burnt out on 3e/3.5/PF and all the complexity the d20 system brought. It was a breath of fresh air and 10 years later I can say it opened my eyes on the beauty of old D&d, the OSR and the simplicity of these systems

[@leatherguru8904]

As far as digital, I read "patches" as a legal right to alter your purchase anytime they want. And like online games you'll have to BUY shit to progress faster in a game. Looking like a money grab. Will there also be "inclusivity monitoring" too? And everyone bitched about 4E being like a video game.

[@roar104]

Can update your versions whenever to make them the most PC version possible

[@yuvalgabay1023]

The fact i will need to spend every month money to look ate a pdf ruins it for me.. patching is a horrible idea because a .you sell books ,b. People will keep the older version in a pdf. Now try start a game whit 3 days argument about what rules from what version to choos .now look for thous whan you need look up rules. Now try to change them whan a new adventure is released and and whan a new patch is out be angry whit your self because you will need to rebalance the adventure you bought. Video game logic wouldn't work in ttrpgs .to mucb freedom. And if you will try to take this freedom out(like most corpos) you wouldn't have a game. But they will survive. 5e has enough die hard fans

[@graycrest806]

I think I'll just stick with 5e and some OSR Trpgs. Especially if I have to be paying monthly for rule changes when I can just go to an open source trpg and get stuff for free, make my own rules, etc.

[@RenegadeVile]

I get wanting to do away with certain older mechanics (I still think 'race' should be called 'species' but I guess that sounds too sci-fi-y; it's just correcter), but it strikes me as odd to remove racial modifiers. Most of these are related to biological differences between various races. Orcs are bigger than humans and naturally inclined to having more strength, whereas Dwarves are shorter and stockier, so they'll have slower movement speed but they're sturdier. You cannot account for your height and its impact on what you can/can't do with background alone.

[@Pit_Wizard]

It's because the Twitter D&D crowd decided that racial ability scores are "racist", even though as you said D&D races are more akin to species. They're very worried about "racial essentialism".

[@RenegadeVile]

@@Pit_Wizard Yeah but they've kept all sorts of other racial qualities (spells, for example) in there, so I'm not entirely sure that's the sole reason. I'm sure there's plenty of mouthbreathers out there that think like that, but it doesn't seem enough.

[@markbrown2206]

It’s not actually that surprising. They started this a while back by getting rid of the negative modifiers. So Orcs aren’t dumb any more (no -1 to INT), they are just strong (+2 to STR and +1 CON). But Humans used to have no stat modifiers, now they have +1 to everything. So, Orcs are still dumber than humans, it’s just done with positive numbers instead of negatives. Now they’ve just gone to the next step, everyone is equal. What’s next, no more levels or loot?

[@graycrest806]

@@markbrown2206 Not to mention doing away with racial alignment for some monsters has been considered. Playable ones too.

[@markbrown2206]

@@graycrest806 Yep

[@bill4824]

“Everything woke turns to sh!t.” Of course, not saying it is going woke, but, once you start down such a path, it goes off the rails pretty quick. DnD, as one commenter pointed out, has always been for everyone. I disagree that it is largely based on “Eurocentric” fantasy as it is purely imagination based. But, that is not the issue. The issue is, it is a game and this game has never been about one group of people based on race, which is what they are saying without coming out and saying it. If you alter the whole game, or, at the very least, major portions of a game in the name of “inclusivity”-when no one is even being excluded- it is a straw man, which is what WotC is doing. Can there not be one fkn thing that isn’t political!?! People play RPGs to escape such overbearing political BS, from both sides. Enough all fkn ready!!!

[@CanyonF]

why even have stat bonuses if its not tied to anything? Just have +2 to whatever you want be part of the rolling stats rule lol

[@justashooter5051]

That's exactly what you get - actually, +2 to one state and +1 to another, or +1 to three stats. If you watch the full 1hr interview, they say the backgrounds default to custom (within certain rules) so you can build pretty much whatever you want, but they'll include several pre-defined backgrounds that follow the custom rules that you can use if you want.

[@CanyonF]

@@justashooter5051 fair enough then lol

[@josephcarriveau9691]

My experience with Radiant Citadel has been a small group of young people cracking jokes about the nonbinary character in one of the "adventures" and the DM and players being unwilling to even try to pronounce any names of places or characters plus me, the old man, not caring about any of it and just wanting to get on to the role playing. I put adventures in quotes because holy moly was the writing/game design bad. One type of encounter repeated over and over and over, NPCs that were literally nothing but plot coupons that could only say "I don't know anything about that but the princess in the next castle might, go there next". The content itself was bad (the game content, no comment on the cultural content I don't know enough about that), the cultural accommodation was made the butt of jokes and used as a reason to avoid engaging with and interacting with the world, and it didn't have much feel of adventure, heroism, or really plot at all. Just a macguffin and some plot coupons. Game already feels like a board game, in a bad way. We're not in a Renaissance, we're in a Dark Age.

[@WASD20]

Sounds like a DM problem

[@josephcarriveau9691]

@@WASD20 I don't want to throw the kid under the bus, I think he handled the material the best he could -- he's a young guy and he's willing to run games for Adventurer's League so I give him the benefit of the doubt. When the module says "start them fighting salamanders, then have them fight more salamanders, then some more salamanders, then some more salamanders" that's not a DM shortcoming, that's a design shortcoming. AL might actually have been a big contributor to it. AL is fine and all but the short play, episodic nature of it I think changes how some players approach situations. It definitely would have benefitted form a longer play format so even if it was mostly plot coupons we could have spent more time sidetrekked and distracted.

[@WASD20]

Gotcha. Yeah I haven’t enjoyed AL, but I’m willing to concede there’s some poor design in DnD adventures. I often feel the need to tweak or skip things.

[@Decado1628]

When you have product that under went little to no play testing and was written by people who admitted to never having played the game that is bound to happen.

[@elliotromero4411]

MS tried the same thing with Windows 10. Now we have Windows 11.

[@joshbare4828]

As someone who just recently got into the game my question is, why even pick a race in this new edition? From the sound of it the most important thing you pick is your background now. Everyone might as well just be humans. I like that each race gets bonuses, it made it more appealing to play different types of characters. Now with backgrounds it makes it so your race is just window coating, or that's what it sounds like to me. I could be wrong. But I think I am going to just stick to regular 5e.

[@PandeyNisheeth]

It then has value in role playing perspectives and depends on the world the game is in. If the dwarves of the world are ostracised in the setting then it matters if you play a dwarf or human.

[@WASD20]

Each race still has some nice mechanical advantages. Ability score bonuses might be more powerful, but they aren’t as exciting as some of the other cool features.

[@therocketboost]

@@WASD20 I don't care how much he works out, a freaking Gnome is not going to be as naturally strong as a Goliath. This is ridiculous.

[@LolDongs69]

@Adam Dee equity* There's a difference, they just never meant equality to begin with. It was all a marketing ploy.

[@SorteKanin]

How much do you think the new rules are influenced by PF2e? The ability score bonuses from backgrounds definitely feels like it comes from that.

[@azathothwakesup]

good point, i forgot about that

[@briangregory8223]

They are avoiding the word "Edition" because they are trying to grow the game and most of the kids starting to play the game now have no idea about the previous editions. Only us old folks care about such things.

[@ThornHailsnap]

The one part I really didn't like, particularly as a player, was the virtual world idea. Everyone sees the same thing. In a 2D world like roll20, the players get to imagine what the DM describes in their own way. Some people may think like Lord of the Rings while others might imagine a world like The Legend of Zelda or even just bits of art they've seen online. Also, a virtual world would take the narration aspect away from DMs. Who needs to describe things when it's plainly visible to everyone? It's like opening a book and seeing a movie instead of words on a page, yet the author still calls it a novel.

[@WASD20]

Yep! Imagination is so powerful. When you get too hi def, you kill it.

[@SpriteAndSmite]

So I can't be a strong af acolyte anymore? In that case, I don't feel included anymore. Way to go, WotC.

[@justashooter5051]

Sure you can. The sample backgrounds are just that - samples. They are built with the same customization rules that are available for you to build your own background. So, if a buff acolyte is what you are after, then build it.

[@Eupolemos]

4:43 - Haha, no - it will be a subscribtion. It is not that I know this, just that is where the real money is. Or both :)

[@oniros80]

What I get from this announcement is this will be a "living" ruleset. I think they want to push more settings books and micro content for digital. Keeping a ruleset like this allows them to go the direction of micro transactions. Digital assets (models, dice, sound packs, tile sets), modules and settings, individual monster or character sheets (eg. the Vecna dossier) for a price. And as enough rules become updated, they can make a money grab to sell a "Revised Deluxe Edition" hard copy with fancy cover treatments and print.

[@antoinewilliams1358]

Shocker, the next edition of dnd is 3.5. Now that they got their cash grab with 5, and they grabbed a good chunk of the mainstream audience, can we have our feats skills, customization, and sneak attacks as easy as having advantage… please. They can keep all that digital crap

[@Underleaf76]

To say D&D has never been inclusive is a fallacy and such a divisive narrative, not to mention complete bullshit...TTRPG's have always been a bastion for those who felt left out and ostracized. As far back as I can remember in my 40 years of gaming... my tables were always a mixed bag.... D&D has always been rich in culture and Lore of many different kinds, if you need some examples.... how about Kara-Tur and Maztica to name a few..... The whole point of TTRPG's is to create a unique character and to become something you're not anyways, why would you want to play yourself in a fantasy game... this narrative is also bullshit... I'm so sick of hearing this crap about I didn't feel welcomed, and wasn't included.... that is mostly coming from the same people who pointed fingers and mocked us and laughed at us for being nerds and dorks. I'm so sick of this crap, and trying to villainize people for enjoying a game.

[@firewalkwithme7560]

Deemphasizing different abilities in fantasy races for no good reason but promoting furries by giving them their own race. How stunning and brave!

[@WASD20]

Lol

[@BockwinkleB]

Wotc is a joke.

[@williamobraidislee3433]

Whenever I’ve looked behind this sort of thing it has to do with an investor. “Here’s a bunch of money - now change your very popular creation to stroke my narcissism.”

[@orenmontgomery8250]

Yeah, they're continuing to go in a bad direction and make all the classes and races less distinct.

[@rango5537]

10:28 Crits say only weapons and unarmed strikes from players can be counted as critical attacks, which means warlocks with eldritch blast cant crit and worst of all npc/monsters cannot crit. :(

[@WASD20]

Ooh. Yeah that kinda hurts. Good catch.

[@rango5537]

@@WASD20 thank god it’s a UA hope they change it

[@yuvalgabay1023]

@@rango5537 like they will

[@ericpeterson8732]

I like it. Eldritch Blast is already the most powerful cantrip in the game because of invocation support. It also doesn't need critical hits. As for npcs/monsters not being able to crit is a good change. As a DM, I have nearly killed my players twice in a low level campaign because of crits. And I don't roll that many. But everytime I do, it has almost killed them. And that is no way to attract new players. Limiting crits to weapons and unarmed strikes gives a boost to weapon based characters who always seem to fall short compared to spellcasters.

[@Kingdomkey123678]

Eldritch blast needs to be a warlock class feature rather than a spell anyway.

[@KingsBard]

WOTC: "Ardling is the holy mirror of Tieflings and a way to have any fantasy beast-headef person you want" My brain the second I heard about them: "Oh God our DeviantArt Winged Furry OCs are canon to d&d"

[@WASD20]

😆 I try not to judge, but yeah this was my thought too. Exactly why I’m not fond of Tabaxi, etc.

[@ccibinel]

The simplified spell lists will be a challenge for classed like artificer and even sorcerer. Essentially balance between sorcerer and wizard was based on the best spells going to wizards in exchange for not having metamagic.

[@jameswarren7527]

Spells will most likely be restricted by the subclass, as are Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters. The Sorcerer and Artificer subclasses can be reworked to do the same. Or be added into class features, as you'll notice Eldritch Blast isn't on the list anymore.

[@lucemferre]

I don't believe Ardlings are replacing any other race, even the aasimar. Considering Aasimar is in MotM and that is forwards compatible. They also aren't entirely animal themed, more likely to be like Egyptian gods with animal heads and maybe fur or feathers.

[@euansmith3699]

From my read-through of UA Document, I thought the spell lists given there were just for the magic gained from the 1st level Feats. I'm expecting the classes to still have their own spell lists.

[@WASD20Live]

Hmm. You may be right.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

What do you mean people need to read up on things or watching 1-hour presentations before commenting on them? No, we must REACT without checking facts first!

[@euansmith3699]

@@CmdrPinkiePie 😆😆😆

[@irok1]

It seemed like those three groups were intended for the three types of magic, because another thing said "you could learn spells outside your [type]". That list was also an incomplete set, so take that as you will

[@TonyCrenshawsLatte]

I also fully expect there to be usual class spell lists. This is just a new way to categorize spells. Case in point: Eldritch Blast, the bread-and-butter cantrip of Warlocks, is nowhere to be found. This ensures that EB will continue to be a Warlock-only spell, and that other classes cannot learn it via the new Magic Initiate feat (which only allows one to pick spells from the new Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists).

[@PapiCito]

5E has been a way more streamline version of DnD. That's why they don't need to make editions anymore. They are probably going to give all backgrounds a feat or effect attached to them, so that's why they have to rewrite the first 3 books. Now they don't have to change rules but just make it easier to play it.

[@maromania7]

Then there will be no business. You either add to it, making it not streamlined, or you don't...and don't make any more money. modules only appeal to subsection of a section of your audience (DMs that don't want to make thier own world/adventure.) You have to add in new things for the players as well. Which adds to bloat and powercreep, which eventually leads to a revision based on how people are playing. Aka, this. Every edition has had it, even if we only usually point out 3.5 because it was such a drastic reset. Then eventually people get bored and start dipping out. We call it system fatigue, few people just replay one game forever no matter how much they love it. No amount of mods can make most people JUST play skyrim thier whole life, even if it's a different adventure or region every time. There will be another edition, eventually. Updates and reiterations only hold interest for so long, it's why they've always launched the next edition within 5 years. Slowing down thier content release rate buys them time, but it can't last forever.

[@PapiCito]

@@maromania7 you know they have just been getting bigger every year for the past 8 years with 5E right? At this point they don't have to make crazy changes anymore. And they will be making more money then ever because now they will have character creation tools, world building tools and now books will have both physical books for collectors and dlc for on the go on dnd beyond. Other games are still played to this day without having to change much at all. Minecraft, chess, card games and so on. They want dnd to just be dnd not just a edition.

[@meikahidenori]

I am very tempted to go back to 3.5e. Many of my favourite adventures that they won't update because they're in Eberron are in that edition. I still feel that setting doesn't get enough credit for how much it changed how certain races were perceived, especially the more monsterous ones. An entire nation ruled over by three witches that WANT to be a part of the rest of the world's stage but seen as they are is really cool and the history and lore or the orcs is just so interesting....like I have no idea why FR is the setting people hype over so much when there's other settings that are so much more flavourful in D&D and slightly less problematic! I mean with Spell Jammer finally updated we could possibly get planescape or at the very least.... dare I say it... a DarkSun setting book? But they need to give us adventures for the settings to get people interested in them, it's pointless giving us a setting and then zero adventures to go with it as you then can't justify introducing it to new players. I'm happy Wildermont is getting stuff and Ravenloft got a supplementary adventure ideas book but we need more of those for the other settings that aren't just high medieval fantasy.

[@pedro4205]

FR was built as a compilation of legends and stories with little real thought, so it is easier to work on. I also found that other campaign sets are better identity wise, i think Eberron is amazing, has lot's of interesting sets.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

We ARE getting Planescape. Don't you people actually watch the presentations????

[@meikahidenori]

@@CmdrPinkiePie nope. I don't always watch the presentations as they waffle on alot and it's monotonous. @Pedro It's good they're planning on Planescape, like Dragonlance and SpellJammer its a setting that if they update it it's not going to mess the lore of the books too much as things have changed in those settings over the years since the initial debut (especially Dragonlance, the Cataclysm events since the War of the Lance have really opened up the setting something that was an issue with the original D&D printings of those adventures - my dad still has them being an avid Dragonlsnce fan along with the TSR maps and art books which got me into art honestly!) Where's while Forgotten relams has had things that have changed in the setting, it's still not as bendable to the more open player options rule sets unlike Eberron which was designed with the ever changing rules of the game in mind. They have changed things with Forgotten Relams lore don't get me wrong, but it's been in part because of backlash from newer players who feel limited by certain races. Sure character races lore is a thing in Eberron as well but the settings 100 years of war allows characters from any race to originate from anywhere with a unifying event affecting them in some way and the fact your defined by the nation you affilate with over the race your character is opens up a ton of options for players if they want to play an Orc or an Elf who wasn't raised around their traditional communities far easier. It still has some problem content (to be fair EVERYTHING has) but much less of it that can easily be bent to fit the rules without affecting the setting in a major way. I find many people don't like the changes the Forgotten Relams has had (they don't bother me but there's some who just really dislike them) and in away it does feel a tiny bit like they're going in with a hack saw to over correct portions while egnoring others. ( I don't hate the setting btw, I quite like it but I must confess I am more Dragonlance than FR knowledgeable) For some of the changes they want to put into the game though the setting needs some kind of big world changing event that would let players have the open door to going nuts character wise and still leave the original lore there for those who do wish to still use it without scrapping it entirely to please both camps which would be interesting to see if I'm honest with you. Yeah it's a waffle. It's late at night here.

[@Taricus]

Just to let you know, you forgot to put the link to the UA pdf in your description

[@buckarooben7635]

They're talking a lot about diversity, but I think they're more likely to give your character sheet a place for pronouns than something cool like a new module set in Kara-Tur.

[@wolvo5441]

I’m not going in for this. Nah.

[@DennisMoore664]

AD&D FOREVER!!!

[@xyonblade]

I still love D&D, I wish WoTC loved D&D, I don't like WoTC.

[@GrognardPiper]

I can’t get behind monsters as player races. I think I’ll be sticking to OD&D and 1E.

[@rodjacksonx]

"They're disassociating ability score bonuses from races." BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[@alexsandoval796]

The devotion to equity and inclusion is a smoke screen to continue and even solidify in the rules shaming and accusations of other players. Since D&D players tend to be very imaginative, creative, and intelligent but socially awkward people this seems very predatory in practice. The whole diversity, equity, and inclusion movement in our culture is an attempt to use racism that is effectively dead in our culture as a false accusation to peer pressure people into silencing any criticisms of their beliefs and/or press them into the service as bullies to further their religious like zealous beliefs.

[@Wilhuf1]

One D&D: Hasbro discovers lucrative ‘games as a service’ and ‘MTX’. Nonsubscribers will be left behind.

[@felipehonoriobs]

i think they wanna blur the margin between editions and turn d&d into a live service model

[@WASD20]

I think be they’ll try, but I’m not sure the fans will tolerate them pushing too hard in that direction. Fourth edition showed us that fans of your brand are only so loyal. Pathfinder scooped up A LOT of DnD fans.

[@ThornHailsnap]

Sounds good to me. Some decent alterations/additions that don't mess with the current version. Can't really argue with that. I especially like that you can get inspiration by rolling a 20. What's "heroic" and "amusing" varies from DM to DM, so having a more universal, grounded method of getting inspiration is a real plus. I also really like that you get relevant ability score increases and feats from your background, not just ideals and bonds. I usually play a Variant Human because they get a feat at 1st level, but if these rules hold I'll be able to get that even if I choose a different race.

[@Taricus]

Are they moving in a direction to get rid of races and classes, except as just a cosmetic detail or something?

[@RPGAPlus]

Seems like it, ey.

[@PohatuEudyptulaMinor]

Where did you get that idea? Races will have more focus on spells and traits, but won't have ASI's anymore - that's tied to your background now. Classes aren't going anywhere.

[@narcozero8410]

Dwarves in the playtest pdf can get tremorsense through stone. Orc get adrenaline rush, even humans get something new ! where do you get the idea that races don’t matter ?

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

Did you read the PDF? Your race gives you a bunch (spells, resistances, special abilities) just not your ability scores.

[@LolDongs69]

@@johnathanrhoades7751 ... Which they already previously did? So they are moving in a way to decrease, not increase, player race choice's impact.

[@diomedes1544]

its almost as if you have always been able to create your character look however you wanted

[@ravingbean9766]

Pathfinder 2E for the win. Fixes all the issues I have with 5e

[@johnharrison2086]

Yep

[@cosmiccowboy9358]

Our table has been mulling over this for a while now I’m just so hesitant to make such an investment again

[@Ashtor1337]

@@cosmiccowboy9358 and what happens when they launch thier next edition?

[@cosmiccowboy9358]

@@Ashtor1337 not necessarily anything as long as it looks good and sounds fun I’m not opposed to change but I’m not gonna play something that doesn’t look fun for me and my table

[@skydude426]

I think 5e is a very solid D&D game that came out of years of playing and hashing out the rules. I view this new D&D one as a way to increase sales by selling all new core books. Our group of players use D&D Beyond instead of character sheets. After this change, we’ll be forced into the new rules and buying the new core books if we want to continue using D&D Beyond. That aspect of this whole thing sucks in my opinion.

[@WASD20]

That totally makes sense. I do wonder what the status will be of those who want to stick with 5e using D&D Beyond. I don’t think it’s completely a given that you will have to transition, but it does seem like a strong possibility.

[@Pawlo_83]

Thb I feel like moving ability score bonuses to backgrounds limit u a little during character creation and creating the history for it.

[@narcozero8410]

Backgrounds are actually the most customisable part of your character. You can still put those asb where you want, it’s just flavored so you consider your character’s background when doing it.

[@cosmiccowboy9358]

@Pawlo this is also my thoughts as well

[@Pawlo_83]

@@narcozero8410 I need to read into this pdf, these are just my first thoughts

[@roar104]

DND always has been for everyone, but with their push for diversity and inclusivity at the cost of game mechanics, it's no longer for me. They're actively pushing away parts of the fanbase that helped keep them around and profitable over the years. That's before you get into their pushing modern day politics into the game as well.

[@Decado1628]

Nailed it!

[@solarisdevorak]

I love your videos but I think you're dead wrong about the whole addition argument. I think they're going to abandon editions and just keep augmenting the current edition. If you watched the one hour video with Jeremy Crawford going into the philosophy behind their changes, he made this very very clear.

[@WASD20]

Ah, yeah I didn’t watch that one yet, so could be!

[@solarisdevorak]

@@WASD20 you should definitely give it a watch. They release all kinds of information about this! And again no slander towards your opinion! I love your videos!

[@euansmith3699]

I think that Nate's point about edition naming hubris might be accurate. When Windows X was released, Microsoft said that it was the last version of Windows they would be releasing... and then they released Windows XI 🤔🙄😆

[@yuvalgabay1023]

@@solarisdevorak u heard it and its sound like hubris. An edition has a life time .there is a point whan an edition start to collapse on its self from many reasons (rules over load,to much money to spend to enter ,ideas driens , power scaling,just people want to try new systems and many more) its will happens. And they wont be able to ignore it

[@Decado1628]

It’s marketing. They know new editions stir up the fan base and are trying to avoid it. This is clearly going to be a new edition of Wotc 5e.

[@MannyBrum]

This will be the last edition of D&D just like Windows 10 was the last version of windows. 😐😂

[@Jeremy_Fisher]

Sounds like a lot of bullshit. They should've left it at 5e.

[@quonomonna8126]

there are a few things I like and a lot of things I don't like...conceptually I like the idea of having an underused feat granted with your background, but I think ability score bonuses should just be "a +2 and a +1 wherever you think they should go" because that's what TCE and MoM put forward - now this is undoing that....I also don't like the idea that 1/20 is auto fail/success when they are taking away crits from monsters, ranged, attacks, and spell attacks....at the same time, I don't think a goblin with a +4 to hit should ever have a chance of hitting my bladesinger with 32 AC no matter what the die roll is...so I'd say keep critical hit damage for all attacks but not make it an automatic success... I think the idea of their being a 5% chance of success or failure regardless of any other factors is really immersion breaking for a lot of people

[@YaroKasear]

I have a problem with the moving of racial bonuses to backgrounds, but it's not over "wokeness." I tend to stop reading and stop taking people who cry over "wokeness" seriously. My experience with people who complain about that are usually one or two steps away from saying something racist/sexist/homopohobic/transphobic anyway. "Wokeness" is basically shorthand for "I'm not a bigot, but..." If you can't address a mechanical problem with something without whining about improving representation, that's your problem, not theirs. The real name of the issue is called "pandering" and though I have problems with the way this new edition of DND handles race, I don't see pandering to be anywhere in these documents. Still, the problem is that the races in D&D are really better described as species. And while I agree it's helpful to realize that not all orcs will be strong or not all dwarves are big on rocks, the whole idea of the racial traits, including their bonuses, was to establish an average baseline. A sort of way of saying "this is the average dwarf" or "typically a goliath's going to be physically stronger than most." Then the whole point buy/standard array/stat rolling was to provide you with a numerical way to establish how your character is NOT an average member of their race/species. Because while in real life race is imaginary in a fantasy setting race is actually better described as "species." And something like a Goliath is on average always bound to be a lot stronger than a Gnome. Moving these stat bonuses to background doesn't make as much sense. That said, background probably should contribute an ability bonus as well since, obviously, something like working at a farm for several years will clearly give you +1 strength. But I find for background it should be way more focused on proficiencies rather than ability scores. I do like the much more modular approach to backgrounds with an emphasis on building your own. I probably would have kept the static ability bonuses pre-Tasha 5e did and then add a single +1 ability score to each background reflective of what ability the background is primarily centered on. A farmer would get +1 to strength, a student of magic would get +1 to intelligence. They've been training up those scores through experience, but skills, tools, and language are probably the bigger emphasis there. Languages need reigning in. While I like the idea that a background could potentially get you to learn any language, I'd say the QUANTITY of languages your character might know is a little absurd. On average I doubt even in a fantasy setting a character would reasonably know more than maybe a common language and a language associated with their own race. This is starting every character, it seems, on three entire languages, and with very little, if any, actual limits placed on what languages they are. As a DM I'd want my players to run their language ideas by me first. The way the RAW for the new edition goes, it seems like any random person can just "know" something like Thieve's Cant which, by definition, should require at least some justification behind it. Either you were a thief or some sort of criminal, or your a rogue who through whatever training you received got taught the Thieve's Cant. The RAW seems to suggest you can just HAVE Thieve's Cant regardless of if that makes sense. Exotic languages need background/class/racial justification. And the half-races thing just annoys me. Like WotC couldn't be bothered to come up with a balanced mechanic for doing something like a dwarf-orc, so they said, "Hell with it, you can describe the character however, but in reality the character is a dwarf or they're an orc." The only concession they give is on average lifespan, but who cares about that? The only way that worthless stat matters is if the DM does an enormous timeskip but still wants that character to be around and they have to consider that. I expect a lot of homebrew rules will come up to completely remove that entire sidecard from this PDF. I get that just letting players pick and choose what parts of both race might have balance issues, but the way I see it is rather simple: Each race already has their traits in a list. You can trade one for one. You can start with one race as a base, then if you want a trait from the other race, you have to drop one from the base race. It's really not that hard, it satisfies that need for customization, it keeps it balanced, and it doesn't make half-races completely nonexistent in gameplay.

[@WASD20]

Yep. Pretty much on board with all this. Well said and thank you for the comment.

[@simontheblind8417]

I don't understand the concept of "diversifying" a game which already has settings based on different cultures in Asia, the middle-east, South America, and Europe (which is so frequently misrepresented as being a single culture by people arguing that we need a broader perspective in our gaming). Show me a setting that's based on sub-Saharan Africa and I *will* happily play it, but I can't help but feel that this is just another excuse to have us buy hundreds of dollars' worth of new product for the 7th or 8th time in the last 30-aught years that I've been playing. On more than one occasion, especially when the tabletop scene didn't have a lot of support online, I fell out of the hobby for a long time because I couldn't keep up financially. Now, after one such hiatus, I'm still trying to learn 5e, being greatly hindered by my loss of vision. I can't expect WotC to specifically accommodate the needs of blind players, but how about the needs of an established playerbase that's enjoying the edition of the game that we currently have? I'd love to see a system by which new editions are published as themed or flavored variants. It'd still be an expensive proposition to keep up with all of it, but players who aren't especially interested in one product line could still pursue the others *without* being left behind, or seeing what they *do* enjoy go completely unsupported. WotC would make its money; maybe a *little* less, and they'd have to do a *little* more work, but the game is more popular than ever now, right? They'd be fine.

[@RokuroCarisu]

It's a buzzword that makes marketing ploys sound like something more meaningful. That's all it really is to Hasbro.

[@vopetas]

That, and it's not even real diversity. They are just making everything the same. Which is more like the opposite of diversity? Not sure why so many corporations fall for thinking like that.

[@alekseylibernikel7606]

Idk. I like my racial ability scores. And i hate that WotC try to remove them from the game. Racials make races more special and unique. Аnd the argument that this is done to give players more options is BS for me. I want my Orc Paladin be stronger than an Elf Paladin. And i want my Orc Wizard to work harder to be smarter than a Gnome Wizard.

[@johnharrison2086]

Yep

[@AoAD]

I don't see how you couldn't really do that anyways. You can slot the ASIs however you want since Tasha's. It's pretty flexible by default, and doesn't matter if it's in race or backgrounds. What matters are the racial features to begin with. If you want to have a strong Orc paladin, do that. If you want to have a more dex based elf, you can do that too. If you want to flip the script and emphasize different strengths, do that. Nothing is stopping you from playing what you want.

[@alekseylibernikel7606]

@@AoAD i don't use Tasha for many things. Including custim ASIs. For me it's not a "doesn't matter if it's in race or backgrounds" but more "doesn't matter what your race is". Yes, we still (yet) have racial features like breth weapon. But now it fill more like "We all Humans. But i am human who can puke with acid" or "I am human who can doze off for 4 hours instead of sleeping" (aka Student). IMHO. Racials ASI is a great way to add depths for your character and alienate him from others characters with different race.

[@AoAD]

@@alekseylibernikel7606 I suppose, though there is something appealing to me to have an open sandbox on whether or not I want to play type or go against it. If you want to have your racial bonuses, sure. The UA said to not give the bonus ability score increases that these backgrounds would normally give if you do. That's the nice freedom of choice here.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

What exactly stops you from using racial ability score bonuses as the house rules in your own campaigns? Just curious. Y'all know there's no D&D police that will show up at your door for going against rules that you were always meant to be able to modify as you see fit for your own games, right?

[@dilsoncamacho4100]

I'd say I'm not sad, but not happy either. IMO it's a good direction, but it's so incomplete, since it pretty much shows that many classes will need a rework, that I can't just talk to my players and decide to try it - If I try stuff that changes crit, the warlock becomes heavily nerfed, if I add the new inspiration but let people use stuff like elven accuracy, it reaches new OP realms... it's a nice, very nice idea, but I can't play test it with what I have now. Right now I think they should start working on one or two more UA content regarding classes and monsters and after that we can actually answer the surveys, when we can properly playtest something.

[@CorvusNumber6]

If it's not broken, don't fix it. Going to check out what 'Pathfinder' is.

[@justashooter5051]

Arguably, some if what they are addressing are broken - or at least imperfect - aspects of the game. Some I don't really agree with, though. But, use the rules you want, disregard the ones you don't. Especially now, since this is playtest material so giving feedback on what is good/bad/meh is important to defining what the final rules will look like.

[@CorvusNumber6]

@@justashooter5051 I agree with you - As a brand new player coming (very) late to the game, I just purchased the 5E Player's Handbook a couple of weeks ago, so I'll be honest and admit that I'm pissed off at my own timing 🤣 It does feel like they are pushing the equality agenda down our throats though. If I stay with D&D, I'll be modding it to my own preferences.

[@justashooter5051]

@@CorvusNumber6 For sure. My family and I got back into D&D right at a year ago with just the PHB, DMG, MM and for Christmas we boucht another PHB, Tasha's, Xanathar's, and Fisban's (and almost bout Mordenkainen's). Plus I bought them all on DND Beyond. Sigh.

[@CorvusNumber6]

@@justashooter5051 Jeez. That's quite a lot of money on reference material! Makes mine seem quite insignificant now! Well, time will tell whether or not players adopt the new rules or just jump ship. I'll reserve judgement for a while and keep abreast of the situation. Thanks for your responses, happy gaming!! 👍😎

[@justashooter5051]

@@CorvusNumber6 Or, just stick with the 5E core rules and ignore the update, like a lot of people have done with previous versions.

[@jmillzoryan9763]

Being someone that is new to DnD I recently realized that there are more cantrips and spells in the Tashas Cauldron and other books that I could use for my character. And there are a plethora of other sub classes and features that are not in the Players Handbook I have. I just wish they would combine all this to a book and sell it at a good price.

[@justashooter5051]

Pretty good chance the new Player's Handbook will incorporate those. But we'll see.

[@tobybigham4196]

The problem with that is, it is not a sustainable business model that will work well with the current setup. D&D has always been about selling the supplements in order keep the game profitable. What you are proposing would require a subscription based model, which would be a good idea if that is where the company wants to go.

[@HaphazardJoy]

That's why DnD Beyond is great. You can buy the relevant books and it all shows up in one place.

[@alexsandoval796]

I grew up with red box, moved to Advanced, 2nd ed, Pathfinder, and did a little 5th ed. My experience was starting as murder hobos, Monty Haul, then of wanting adventure, sliding into attempts to optimize characters and situations, then wanting a better way to customize my character and experience, then unfounded accusations of being a satanic cult member who murders kids, kick in the balls to imagination by requiring miniatures, then a drifting mistrust away from the players at the table toward using the books as tools to attack and accuse other players, then seeing the imagination being hobbled with feats, then watching it turn into a pay to win with the power creep of each new book, then seeing accusations of my hobby that was focused on heroism, adventure, creativity, and depth of character be used to accuse every player as sexist and racist bully, then making everything easier to hit and longer to kill, a growing undermining sensation that their is no real risk in the game.

[@Wilhuf1]

Here comes subscriptions and microtransactions

[@shinjanaytor]

I love your shirt! Where did you get it?

[@WASD20]

Some D&D Beyond freebie they sent to content creators a few years back. Back when I was on their list. :)

[@sullivanthomas2704]

"One D&D" make me think of video games concept "game as a service GAAS" => The same thing going on and on with adjustments maybe... As you mentionned it.

[@RenegadeVile]

Yeah, it just sounds like a test-screened buzzword. It sounds slimy. Something a salesman would say to make something sounds more different than it is.

[@hannasophia18]

I'm definitely interested to see where this is going. Suggested to my players to playtest things as they come out. We're a relatively inexperienced (playing on and off for about 3 years with long hiatuses), very chaotic, roleplay heavy group so I'm interested to see how the new rules impact those things. The background effecting ability increases makes a lot of sense to me. I think ardling is a smart addition, I love shifters, tabaxi and harengons already so should be fun!

[@geektome4781]

I think this D&D One thing is a terrible idea and the virtual tabletop sounds like WotC is going full-on EA with microtransactions.

[@spaceranger7683]

There's never been a better time to get OUT of 5E D&D.. First, this is going to be the TTRPG version of "games as a service," and will probably be just as anti-consumer in practice. Second, if this is WotC's big move to consolidate D&D, then drying up the supply of older edition .pdf material is the only logical play. Remember, the OSR movement is their biggest sales competitor, and this is a great neutral-seeming excuse to stop encouraging that counter-culture via selling old edition content. Finally, official 5E content is entirely permeated with Far Left political ideology and there is no reason to believe that will change in the near-term. If that is not representative of your values, or you're generally opposed to any politicization of the hobby, it past time to stop supporting 5E.

[@leebrown1049]

As soon as I heard the words of the cult of the woke I was out. So glad I played D&D at it's best when it was 2Ed, where anyone could play, there was no politics, it was just about having a good time with friends. Have you listened to it. The fantasy world where you could be anyone wasn't inclusive enough so we're bringing the real world adventures into it. I wonder if it comes free with a participation trophy. Is there anything the woke haven't destroyed? Movies, TV, books, music, life in general and now a game where you could be anything you want, be the hero, rescue the maiden and save the day and that still wasn't enough for them.