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!

[@m4xfl4xst4r]

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.

[@That-Guppy]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...??

[@thebeanz7838]

Wizards having a VTT makes me thing their is more potential for them to monetize stuff, then enhance our play experience

[@graycrest806]

That's likely where its going

[@aikighost]

While basically ignoring in person play. Im pretty much uninterested in this cash grab.

[@Krix6426]

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

[@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*

[@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.

[@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....

[@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).

[@danddjacko]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@dogm40]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@elliotromero4411]

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

[@DKrappenschitz]

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

[@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.

[@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]

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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@DaDunge]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@Taricus]

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

[@diomedes1544]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@Littul_Actual]

I think the move away from racial bonuses to backgrounds is an interesting one. In some sense, it makes sense that someone who has a background as a thief should get a dex bonus because it's what they "grew up" doing. I don't know if I agree with the execution though, nothing stopped you in 5e from making a half orc wizard, sure your bonuses are not in the "correct" stats, but you could always put your high rolls into those. It sounds like to me, that in 2022, WoTC wanted to get away from anything having to do with a certain race being "better" than others at something, not that this is a bad thing. Inspiration is a weird thing at the table anyway, I feel like even if I hand it out like candy, it seldom gets used or on some nights it gets over used. This change with inspiration awarded for nat 20s will have the least amount of impact at the table imo. Lastly, the spell list changes sounds like a way to lower the barrier to entry in spell casting by organizing the spells by domain and level. I don't know if this will actually make it easier or not for people to understand which spells are available and would be good to use in certain situations. I dunno, my table is still coming to an understanding of what the rules are for 5e so I dont think we'll be making any changes for some time. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

[@ccibinel]

Spell list changes will be weird for some classes. Artificer or arcane trickster with full wizard spell list... Even sorcerers will get a huge boost from this. The only other option would be to have many spells be "class spells" rather than on the standard lists. Class balance will need serious work and all old subclasses likely will not be truly compatible with the new "not an edition".

[@HaphazardJoy]

I love the background and origin options being developed here, and yeah, it makes a lot of sense that a blacksmith apprentice, regardless of race, is going to get STR and CON bonuses, etc. I do still dislike the nerfing of racial bonuses, though. It doesn't make sense that a halfling and a goliath start in the same place, you know? Easy enough to homebrew in a rule that lowers the max attributes to 18 before racial modifiers, though, so no big deal.

[@trevordavis6830]

I think the reasoning for the spell list change is because it'll make it easier for Wizards to come up with effects that react to the type of spell you're using. Like instead of just saying a devil is weak to radiant damage, you can say that they're weak to divine spells in general and have disadvantage to saving throws caused by those spells. Or instead of having a magic item that boosts the spell casting ability of rangers and druids, you can have one that boosts the spell casting ability of all primal spells so that warlock who has access to primal spells through their patron can also get the benefit of that magic item.

[@SeleneSalvatore]

I like bonuses from background are different than race bonuses. This force you to be more flexible, talk with your DM about some aspects and build more rounded character that not have lot minus bonuses to main statistics. I think all background should have skills, tools and/or feet as bonus because some backgrounds give you more than others.

[@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.

[@GrognardPiper]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@patr5902]

Understand the concern with 3D tabletop. As with increase in physical models, most will only use this feature for key scenes (combat). Leaving the majority to theater of the kind. Some may still play inside it entirely, but will probably be about as common as hex-crawls are today.

[@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.

[@patrickbenjamin9056]

Maybe they are doing the Castles & Crusades thing with each printing being an update, but backwards compatible?

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@itsadreamfrodo6461]

Hmmm, I hope they keep some race ability increases. It makes sense that some races are stronger because they are 8 feet tall! Albeit some bonuses do seem “because they needed something”.

[@GruntBurger]

This honestly seems like another step in the wrong direction to me. In an attempt to be, inclusive? I guess... They are removing one of the most fundamental and foundational aspects of d&d, that you live in a diverse world full of fundamentally distinct and different races. Dwarves drink and fight and mine, it makes total sense that they are stout and hearty compared to races that don't. Your background should be reflected in your stat placement, not with bonuses.

[@sumotode]

Imma be a 800 pound gorilla with the strength of a chihuahua, pretty much sums up 5e anymore.

[@griselame]

3.5 The Return in digital is what it's like... Gonna monetize the hell out of it I'm sure. Ah well... Have fun with that folks!

[@Galvamel]

I actually like the rules changes. But, I'm curious where do you stand on the return of Dragonlance and Spelljammers to D&D? I wonder if that's what their One D&D is going to be? Not just rule changes but a major change to the game world so that old unused campaign settings that used to be their own worlds are going to come back but as new regions and lands, and of the main D&D world would now act as a sort of hub-world.

[@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

[@metagames.errata7777]

Kinda hoping they do move warlocks to divine or more likely primal. Otherwise the spell list change is probably going to make them feel more like sorcerers than they already do. And there's probably a ton of people who said that first.

[@germiesqui1]

I think that all the one dnd and no more editions staff is a paradigm shift in which instead of releasing a new edition every few years, they will keep this edition in time and simply update the rules little by little (as if it were a service?) but we will never see a dnd 6e because they think is no longer needed (the complete overhaul of rules and having a digital media where they can update without giving free physical books is convinient for them)

[@oxwagon]

People said precisely this about "D&D Next." But we all just called it 4e, and didn't buy it because it was bad. And now we all try to forget that it ever happened.

[@highdie84]

@@oxwagon Dnd next was what 5e was supposed to be called...

[@germiesqui1]

@@oxwagon didn't knew about that one hahahaha

[@MA-oz2rn]

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

[@majkus]

Lord of the Rings was published in the 1950s and had early popularity among science fiction fans (the first Tolkien fanzine was published in 1960), but its explosive growth in popularity was with the emerging collegiate (read 'baby boomer') counter-culture crowd of the 1960s, which led inevitably to the hugely successful authorized Ballantine paperback edition (95 cents a volume, compared to 75 cents for a typical paperback of the time) in 1966. But there was plenty of fantasy literature around before that (much of which was republished by Ballantine in the wake of the Tolkien success in their excellent Adult Fantasy Series of the early '70s), by authors like E. R. Eddison (The Worm Ouroboros), James Branch Cabell (Jurgen), Lord Dunsany (The King of Elfland's Daughter) and William Morris (The Well at the World's End), to say nothing of Howard's Conan stories, Jack Vance's Dying Earth, and Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - all three of which were large influences on Gygax's first Dungeons and Dragons volumes. And all of them were European worlds in which females were satellites to the male heroes (even when themselves powerful). So Tolkien was writing in a well established tradition, for good or ill. Now, aren't you glad you asked? You did ask, right?

[@patmacken5130]

The complete re-write going from 2nd edition to 3rd was one reason I did not take up 3rd edition. Back in 2nd edition they did start to get out of the “medieval Europe” setting with settings like Al Quedeem. Really they is all they need for that. Not sure how I feel about the racial abilities changes though.

[@tobybigham4196]

I lived for a number of years in 2nd ed. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Oriental Adventures, and many many other supplements were used to expand the settings to fit a variety of stories and settings. Like you I quit roughly around the time 3rd Edition came out, namely because I enlisted in the USMC, but also I didn't feel like reinvesting at the time. Considering I had well over $380 of content by the time I was 16, and I had to earn most of that money the slow way back then.

[@patmacken5130]

@@tobybigham4196 I still have all my old 2nd Ed. Stuff. I don’t know if I will use it again either. We just kept playing with the 2nd edition stuff. I stopped because the person I was playing with lives away to get married. My brother owns the local game/comic shop and once I walked in as he asked if I was interested in selling it ( he had somebody looking for 2nd Ed stuff right in front of him) and later he had a lady much younger than I ( be old enough to date I think she was in her 20’s) who still played 2nd edition. Unfortunately I was dating somebody else at the time.

[@starwall8755]

I'm excited about the changes, but skeptical of the VTT (maybe ONE DnD is just what the VTT is going to be called?)

[@SevenWondersProd]

They will call it... D $ D

[@3scoopsofguac]

I have aphantasia and the digital helps me a lot to enjoy my time.

[@HaphazardJoy]

I am hard of hearing and the digital helps me to enjoy my time as well!

[@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

[@Reanimatedself]

The only thing I really want is improved combat flow. It’s slow. It’s been slow. And even when you modify it to help the flow it’s still slow. Though, D&D beyond does help with that some

[@highdie84]

Ardlings are one thing that I am not excited about, I personally think they should have stuck with aasimar. Also the weird thing about ardlings is that they aren't even anthropomorphic they just have the heads of animals, also for some reason they decided to again change how the Dragonborn's breath weapon works and make it a full action, again. Honestly everything else seems interesting in my eyes, besides those two things. I am genuinely excited to see what they do with the classes.

[@markelliott9737]

They are obviously trying to capture the "furry" market with the Ardlings, although among non furries I am also sure my wolf obsessed daughter would be happy :-)

[@Rubycule]

You do realize Aasimar got a reprint in MotM, right? When I read the ardling, I instantly thought of old egyptian gods, which I think is pretty cool. You don't have to be a furry to like the concept.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

They're not REMOVING Aasimar. They're ADDING Ardlings.

[@highdie84]

I know they aren't removing Aasimar, but before we all assumed Aasimar are the inverse of Tieflings only for them to spring ardling up. I hate that the theme that used to be Aasimar has been given to a new race for no particular reason

[@highdie84]

@@Rubycule The issue I have with the ardlings is the conflicting thematic with aasimar. There isn't anything thematically that distinguishes aasimar and ardlings, which in my eyes means that they are not necessary, because they don't bring anything new to the table, thematically.

[@keshavraman7739]

I hope they don't change starter set rules and why don't just make a list of now official UA items to buy.

[@Reanimatedself]

Mines of phandalar comes with a digital code as well as free expansions for that campaign

[@HaphazardJoy]

Yes, I imagine the edition naming scheme is a jargony barrier for some new players, frustration over knowing what edition to play, etc. Likewise, since this is fully 5e compatible, it avoids confusion the sentiment that 'they're trying to make us buy everything again,' though I've heard that levied against One D&D. I think it's a bit silly, but there are reasonable explanations. Likewise, they ARE already selling bundles, starting with Dragonlance this year. Via Wizard or DnDBeyond, you can pre-purchase both the physical and digital versions. I HOPE that this will rapidly extend to a code in books sold in stores. Either way, I'm still buying physical copies from my FLGS. Adding that to all of the books moving forward is easier said than done because of how long publishing takes (and global supply chain issues), but I will be angry if they're driving purchases away from local stores in the new year.

[@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.

[@wolvo5441]

I’m not going in for this. Nah.

[@johnharrison2086]

This new edition, which is exactly what it is, will divide their remaining fanbase and it will be glorious 😆

[@WASD20]

You may be right. Fortunately these days we have TONS of tabletop RPG options

[@lorenzovaletti4951]

It's an interesting question: will it ultimately drive more people out or into their specific system? I see good arguments on both sides.

[@davescrams]

"Dividing their remaining fanbase" would still make D&D the most popular TTRPG by leaps and bounds. It's okay to prefer other games, but there's no value in pretending that they aren't the overwhelming market leader.

[@justashooter5051]

@@davescrams Or that dividing the D&D fanbase is somehow "glorious". I don't get it.

[@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.

[@AbeH]

My theory is that they will no longer put "fith eddition" on the cover and just write d&d

[@Copperwasp]

For ONE D&D Is there still schools of magic, or just arcane, divine & primordial spells list?

[@WASD20]

I assume there will still be schools of magic

[@mortalsupport117]

D&D has alot more competition than you would think. I think the tech decisions they're making atm are actually a little late. They should've been thinking about some of this stuff 4 years ago. Games like demeo in vr , and a couple games on steam,...actual dnd could get real screwed real fast. Virtual table tops, animated miniatures, that's all good stuff that's gonna help them keep up. If it wasn't for stranger things reintroducing dnd to the masses, and big bang theorys influence on how we view 'nerds' , I think covid would've put the nail in the coffin for them. I'm glad they're adapting. Wish they had done it sooner.

[@alexsandoval796]

The digital play style and customizable mini printing sounds good in some fashion. I think this will give both the online role playing sights as well as the miniature printers a run for their money. More competition will only make all these platforms and services better as it will leave those unwilling to better themselves to fade into the dustbin of history. Although these sound nice my best experiences have not been with miniatures but rather in stories illustrated by my imagination, and my online experience is very little. Some of the younger players who are not as ready to put down their phones may find this extremely useful. The nature of table top gaming makes me skeptical of this technological sweep though.

[@mythyc9604]

😂 u think they’re gonna give you free digital copies?! 😂 Hasbro gonna break your heart

[@rodrijopo]

Here it goes for Clerics joining Paladins and SMITING everything (and with more spells slots to spend!)

[@LittleQueue]

I'll probably be sticking to 5e. This all sounds like it's going to cater to players who want to "win at dnd" and don't want to have any agency or urgency in game. Not a table I'm interested in playing or running. But that's just me

[@WASD20]

The rules aren’t final. Just a playtest, and I’d encourage everyone to leave feedback.

[@pdubb9754]

Changing editions always capitalizes on FOMO, trying to get old players to buy in, literally, while attracting new players. D&D has been around for 50 years, it goes through editions about 1x per 5-10 years depending on how you count it. They are never going to stop changing the game because it will give up on the FOMO revenue. I'll buy the new edition, probably, but I won't do it feeling like it is the last time that I will feel the need to buy a DMG, PHB, and MM, because they have perfected the game.

[@nick91884]

It sounds like they are going to a living ruleset. No editions, the rules will just continue to evolve which makes sense with the digital push. My main issue with a living ruleset is you eventually leave behind the physical books early in the game. But it becomes harder to draw that line that we have with editions. I guess we'll see.

[@graycrest806]

Plus you'll have to relearn em every update.

[@WASD20]

Interesting. Could be, I suppose.