# First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.



## darjr

For the first playtest talks. Character Origins.


Get the playtest here.






						Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond
					






					www.dndbeyond.com
				




See the spoiler block for the transcript


Spoiler



Do
0:12
We Begin we we begin with Origins right appropriately enough we begin at the
0:18
beginning and so this under tarkana is the first and what's going to be a
0:25
series of Unearthed Arcana articles that come out every month or so over the
0:30
course of not only the next year but probably the next year and a half or so where we're
0:36
going to present different pieces of the player's handbook but with brand new
0:43
content then also familiar content but with new elements
0:49
updates and this is the chance for DND fans to let us know what they think to
0:57
really lend their voice to the chorus of DnD fans that will be really letting us
1:04
know where they want us to go next with this game that many of us have been
1:09
playing for decades and so many people have been playing since the 5th edition
1:15
players handbook came out in 2014. and so with this first one we thought
1:22
why not start at the start and that is uh figuring out where your character in
1:31
d d where did they come from and so when we say your character origin that's what
1:36
we're talking about what in your back story helped shape who you are and was
1:43
formative for you before you became an adventurer your adventuring life is largely
1:51
expressed by your character class and so character classes we'll get to in some
1:57
upcoming anarch Arcana articles in this one we're going to be looking at
2:03
three main elements that together Express who you were in the earliest
2:11
stages of your life and that is your character's race your character's background as well as whatever feat that
2:20
you get as part of that background because yes one of the new things here
2:25
which some of our recent d d books have already signaled was coming and many fans have already guessed coming that
2:33
everyone's background will now give them a first level feat but we'll talk more
2:38
about Feats I think a little later in the video so to begin since this is about Origins
2:44
let's start with race so your character's race in d d represents your ancestry in many ways
2:53
when you make your character you decide are is your character a member of the human race or one of the game's
2:59
Fantastical races various race options have appeared in many of our books over the last eight
3:06
years now is our time in this under turkana to revisit our old friends the races that
3:14
are in the player's handbook and so here we're going to be able to look at all of us together as d d fans the latest
3:21
versions of humans elves dwarves and others
3:26
many familiar aspects of those races are still here many of the traits that
3:34
people have been using for the last eight years they're right here on the page
3:39
but then there are also new traits and some of those traits that we've been all using in our characters have new options
3:47
great example of this in the dwarf you still have stone cunning
3:52
but now a dwarf as long as they're in contact with stone in some way whether
3:59
they're standing on it touching it dwarves now a certain number of times per day can give themselves Tremor sense
4:06
meaning they can sense through the Earth itself if there are creatures nearby
4:12
moving objects we're really leaning into
4:17
the Mythic stories of each of the race options in the game and looking for ways
4:24
to make them sort of the version truest to themselves like some something that
4:30
we would talk about while working on them is we want this dwarf to be the dwarfiest dwarf right right we want the
4:37
elf to be the elfiest elf and so we've been looking at ways of not only
4:42
maintaining continuity with with what sort of the general silhouette of that
4:48
race option is in the 2014 Players handbook but again bring some new elements to the foreground give you some
4:56
more fun things that you'll be able to do during play so that's another element
5:02
people are going to see in the races that ones that maybe in the past didn't
5:07
have an active ability something they could do during play now there they
5:12
might have one and so the dwarf's Tremor sense is an example of this now the dwarf has something that there they can
5:19
use that makes them feel dwarfy and will have usefulness and Adventures uh while
5:26
also having some of the familiar traits that they had before the resistance to
5:31
poison for instance right still here I love the narrative hook of that just because if you're a minor if you are a
5:38
tunnel Digger like in a war you are extremely sensitive to vibrations yes
5:44
you're just Ultra aware all the time so that's that's perfect for that uh playable race exactly and uh you will
5:53
get to see things like that uh in all of them where we took something that was
5:59
there before and often it's just we turned up the volume what can we do to this to make it even more fun uh give a
6:07
new dimension of play for people as they play their dwarf they're halfling their
6:12
gnome what have you uh in some cases
6:18
there are also options where before there were none one example I'm really
6:23
excited about is uh if you play a tiefling you now have several really
6:30
interesting choices choices that we began exploring years ago in modern canaan's Tome of foes and
6:38
now lean into here in the the this UA for the Player's handbook and that is
6:44
when you create a tiefling you decide what your infernal Legacy is I'm sorry
6:49
your fiendish legacy and one of those options is infernal but your legacy also
6:55
might be Abyssal or a a new third option which we're calling cathonic which has
7:02
to do each of these options has to do with different lower planes and so
7:08
infernal means you come your your legacy is connected to lawful evil planes if
7:16
you pick cathonic it's neutral evil planes and if you pick up Bissell chaotic evil planes now of course the
7:23
tiefling's moral Outlook is is not connected to this sort of origin of
7:29
their mystical powers which are shaped those Powers by this
7:35
choice so if you want the tiefling you have already in the 2014 player's
7:41
handbook choose the infernal Legacy and you're going to see you have the
7:47
familiar abilities although you have a little more now because now in addition to the magical abilities you had before
7:54
you now also have the Firebolt can't trip because you're going to be able to
7:59
hurl fire thanks to the Legacy that you have because that's very much the the
8:06
fire and the the pits and the Flames are basically what evokes that type of uh uh
8:13
setting for anything of infernal exactly whereas if you pick Abyssal you have a
8:19
completely different set of spells that you that you have in you innately and
8:26
then also your damage resistance is different so infernal tieflings have the
8:31
resistance to fire that tieflings have in the 2014 Players handbook whereas Abyssal and cathonic teeth links have
8:39
other damage resistances this sort of structure of giving you
8:45
choices that maybe you didn't have before is something you'll see in a variety of places not only in this under
8:53
tarkana but in future ones as well now there's another fun choice that
8:59
tieflings will have that they didn't have before and it's also a choice that humans have in this unarth Arcana and
9:05
that is their size if you are a human or a tiefling you're now going to be able
9:10
to decide whether you are medium as they are in the 2014 player's handbook or
9:16
small because first off in the real world there are humans who are small and so we
9:22
want to make sure that's now an option in the game as well and when it comes to
9:28
tieflings we added that option because some of the games iconic fiends are
9:34
actually quite little yeah and and so we thought how fun would it be to see more
9:39
height variants in tieflings a theme then that we carry over into a brand new
9:46
race that is also in this on our tarkana would you like to talk about that yes I
9:53
would love to so these are very unique week yes so in this on Earth Arcana we introduce a race
10:01
that we're calling the ardlings ardlings are also a people of the outer Plains
10:08
like tieflings and like asamar who appear in Monsters of the Multiverse
10:14
and ardlings are associated with three different groups of upper planes
10:21
you'll see there's a parallelism here tieflings are associated with sort of
10:27
three through the three main segments of the lower planes ardlings are associated with the three main segments of the
10:34
upper planes they can be smaller medium just like tieflings and all of their
10:40
abilities are themed around you know the heavens and whatnot but also visually
10:47
they are really going to stand out because one thing that sets ardlings
10:53
apart from say their asamar cousins is they all have the the face of an animal
11:02
and what we're doing here is we're really leaning into the fact that going all the way back to first edition many
11:09
of the game's celestials don't actually look like Angels many of the game celestials from The Game's long history
11:17
and I'm thinking here of cardinals Hound archons many of the avatars of specific
11:23
Gods many gods themselves in not only dnds pantheons but General mythology yes
11:30
but also in in human mythology have the visages of animals and so that that is
11:37
true of the ardlings where when you make one of these folk who can trace their
11:43
lineages to the upper planes you also decide uh what animal appearance you
11:49
have whether you know you're a bear or a lion or a cat or an eagle uh that that
11:58
is going to make it so that when when you're walking down the street people are going to know there's something
12:04
special about you especially when you then also temporarily Sprout your spectral Wings To Go on short short
12:12
little bouts of flight so this will also be the first time that we have introduced a a race with limited flight
12:19
in the player's handbook right and we saw that in a previous UA as well but
12:26
yeah this limited flight because flight can flight is an interesting thing yes and and this flight definitely is just
12:33
for little bouts because uh the ardlings do not have physical Wings all the time
12:39
but they can Channel their connection to the upper Plains to temporarily have these
12:45
luminous wings that they use to you know maybe reach a heart a a hard to reach
12:51
place I I like to imagine that you know some of them especially with their their animal features might sometimes just use
12:58
this ability to get that cat stranded up there in the tree uh yeah nothing nefarious
13:05
although although just as tieflings determine their own moral compasses this
13:12
is true of artlings as well so uh just because you know Grandma might have been
13:18
from Mount Celestia doesn't mean you're ardling shares the moral Outlook of that plane
13:24
so you could play a Sinister ardling and I think it would be quite interesting to
13:31
see that in in people's games in the years ahead oh yeah I'm already going to I'm playing a bat ardling a hundred
13:38
percent you have Unleashed my my bat humanoid bat fantasy already unknowingly
13:44
so I'm very excited for this and and I can't wait to find out if your bat artling is uh from the uh exalted
13:53
Heavenly or idyllic oh wow interesting yeah no that that will require some
13:59
thought yeah and because because just as in the tiefling that choice then uh
14:05
gives your character different magical abilities themed to
14:10
the the sort of group of planes that your character's Legacy is connected to so one of the races that is included
14:17
right from the get is in the player's handbook for 2024 presumably is the orc
14:25
so the orc is another new race for the
14:30
Player's handbook that appears here and people who have monsters of the Multiverse will see this orc is the orc
14:38
from that book and we've decided that because for many many years the orc has
14:44
been playable it's long past time for the orc to graduate to the player's
14:50
handbook right and so many people play them yes and and you know take take
14:57
their place uh next to uh this other cast of characters so I'm excited that
15:03
uh Orcs are are now going to be there in the games core rulebook but man
15:09
tiefling's got there first I know we also have
15:15
backgrounds and backgrounds have become so much more important than they were
15:20
before yes uh and not only more important but also more customizable
15:28
than they've ever been before and more narrative weight yes this is this is an important fact it's super important
15:34
about your character exactly um and this this emphasis on narrative
15:40
is something that people will also see uh glimmers of also back in the race
15:48
section of the same UA because uh something that we offer to players now
15:55
officially this is something people have been doing in their you know their games for many years uh
16:01
in a sort of story space between your race choice and your background choice
16:06
we encourage you to consider the possibility that your character
16:12
might have parents of different humanoid kinds your one parent might be a dwarf
16:18
the other one might be a halfling one parent might be a human and the other one might be an orc some of these
16:25
pairings the game has embraced in the past we're now opening it up so to
16:32
encourage people to realize many pairings are possible and when you do it what you do is you choose one of those
16:40
basically you choose the parent that gives your character your game traits right but then you can mix together the
16:48
visual qualities of the two to determine how your character looks and so you're you're kind of you have you have two
16:55
options to draw from for the aesthetic of your character and then again you choose which one is giving you your
17:02
special traits your characters size and speed that sort of thing and like
17:08
you said players have been doing this so for so long like my own wife plays a
17:13
gnome half Goblin a noblin right like this is very common you just
17:20
have to choose the the stats that you want to go with right yeah and and so again another example of us providing uh
17:29
new ways of experiencing the game we're all already playing
17:35
so now let's go from that to then the background yeah let's get into the
17:41
backgrounds and backgrounds are really exciting for me because of how we
17:49
essentially deconstructed them into their component parts examined each part and then reassembled
17:56
them and so the first thing that people are going to see is that the default option
18:04
now for your background is to build your own
18:09
in the 2014 Players handbook we had a bunch of backgrounds you could choose
18:14
from and then we had a rule that said if you want to customize a background here's how you do it we've essentially kind of
18:22
reversed the priority order where Now the default
18:28
is build your own background and we tell you exactly how
18:34
or choose one of the sample backgrounds that we provide that were built using
18:40
the rules that we just gave you for building a background and so what those
18:47
rules include are some choices for your character that can be very meaningful
18:54
for you not only in terms of your character's story but also in terms of
18:59
your character's abilities because first off speaking of abilities
19:04
one of your choices in background is where you're going to put a floating
19:10
plus two and a plus one to your ability scores people are already familiar
19:17
who've been playing d d with Tasha's cauldron of everything as well as some of our other recent books like Monsters
19:23
of the Multiverse that allow you to have a plus two and a plus one that you
19:29
decide where they go in your characters so this is going to feel familiar but
19:35
what's different is now that we're working on revising the player's handbook itself where those bonuses now
19:42
live in this play test material is in the background section and it makes
19:48
sense because you've been doing this this is your background this is like the life that you have led this is why you
19:53
are more dexterous this is why you have you're stronger because you lifted great
19:59
sword like you were a soldier you know this this kind of equates exactly because background is all about what
20:06
have you been doing yeah for all for all the years before you became an adventurer it it it has a meaningful
20:14
effect on your character's stats and now if you choose one of the pre-made
20:21
backgrounds people will see we've we have chosen what those ability score bonuses are connected to the story of
20:28
the background but if you use the default option which is building your own just as you can in
20:35
Tasha's cauldron of everything you can put that plus two in that plus one or
20:40
three plus ones wherever you want just as you can with tashas but and the
20:47
reason why we're doing it sort of both ways where if you do build your own you decide where they go or if you choose a
20:52
pre-made background we decide where they go because we also know there are many players who don't want to have to decide
20:58
and so if you just like I pick soldier soldier tells me to increase these two
21:05
stats in this way and then they're good to go it's sort of The Best of Both Worlds well and it illustrates the point
21:10
very well yes and that and really many of the backgrounds uh that we provide
21:15
are really just illustrations of how people can use the new background
21:22
building system so ability scores are a part of it you
21:27
just as you do now you uh in the 2014 Players handbook you'll also get two
21:32
skill proficiencies uh you get a tool proficiency you get a language uh you
21:39
also get a starting package of equipment and uh Even in our deconstruction and
21:45
rebuilding process even all those equipment packages uh have been examined because we're embracing uh this build
21:53
your own approach one of the things we needed to do was make it so that all the backgrounds have equipment packages of
22:01
the same value yeah because in the 2014 Players handbook they didn't and so now
22:07
if people like add up how you know the cost they'll see oh all the backgrounds
22:12
have equipment packages worth exactly 50 gold pieces instead of just going for
22:18
criminal or Noble right right and uh
22:24
one of the main reasons why we've done that is to empower this build your own
22:30
approach yeah so then the other thing you get in your
22:35
background and we touched on it earlier in our talk and it is in my mind the
22:41
most exciting new piece of background and that is you also get a first level feat
22:47
so in that statement there are a few things for me to unpack first off I just talked about a feat and gave it a level
22:56
that's critical because people are going to see not only in this under tarkana but in the upcoming Unearthed arcanas
23:02
over the next year plus they're going to see Feats appearing and
23:07
every feet will have a level on it the way to think of a feat is a feat is
23:13
essentially a class feature that doesn't belong to a single class and Justice
23:18
class features have levels Feats are now going to have levels that makes a lot of sense and and so there's a there are
23:26
several reasons for this one because we're really embracing Feats
23:31
in certain parts of this play test process backgrounds being
23:38
one of one of the main parts of the game where we're doing that we want to make sure that feat selection
23:45
is not overwhelming and one way for us to make it so that it's not overwhelming is to break Feats
23:52
up into smaller groups and one of those ways that we're doing that is with levels so for instance if
23:59
something in the game tells you go pick a first level feat then you know immediately well then I can ignore all
24:05
the Feats in this book that are for fourth level that are for 20th level or any other level that might be on the
24:12
feets instead you can just focus in on the first level ones and this allows
24:18
those Universal traits that don't belong to any specific class to have a variance
24:25
of power that fails like more in tune with your leveling up exactly like it
24:31
allows you not to like I'm just picking from the same pool of Feats as I've always done like no that you can get a
24:38
feat that is much more uh strong yeah well not only that but also something
24:44
people are going to see is that when you examine the first level Feats in this Unearthed Arcana if you're familiar with
24:51
the Feats that have been in the game in the last eight years some of them have in addition to including some sort of
24:57
special benefit have often also included a plus one to one of your ability scores
25:02
right you'll notice reading this document none of these Feats have a plus one to an ability score and that's
25:10
intentional because that is actually one of the signs that you're looking at a first level feat because when you see
25:16
some of the higher level feeds in our upcoming on Earth arcanas some of those
25:22
Feats will still have a plus one to a particular ability score but again one
25:27
of the signs of a first level feed is they don't include that and because first level feeds are not
25:34
meant to change your ability score because when you're building your
25:40
character there are already other things that are manipulating your ability scores right that those initial factors
25:46
whereas when you move forward and you start hitting other levels you are faced with the do I increase my ability stats
25:53
or do I go with feet right this kind of softens that as well of like well you're
25:59
still getting a benefit with some of these feeds well you're not only getting a benefit but it's a benefit your character didn't have before right this
26:05
is this is a pure addition that we're providing now for everybody and we have
26:12
that in mind as we decide what qualifies as a first level feed and what doesn't uh basically anything that's going to
26:20
dramatically increase uh character power in some way people are not going to see
26:26
as a first level feat uh that that is the domain of higher level Feats where
26:31
uh the game's math can handle adjustments to raw power most first
26:38
level Feats are about increasing a character's versatility and speaking to
26:44
different key backstories and you'll see that these Feats are you know
26:52
they all are featured in at least one of the sample backgrounds in this document
26:58
so you can also see looking at the sample backgrounds how to match
27:03
first level feeds with background if you decide to build your own background and
27:10
again if you don't want to you just grab one of these pre-made backgrounds and the background just feeds you a
27:16
particular feat for instance if you if you pick the Sailor you're gonna get
27:22
Tavern brawler and and the reason for that is because in the little story that we provide for the Sailor it's because
27:29
on your on your long Journeys you have spent a whole lot of time in taverns you
27:35
know in different ports of call and uh and in the process you've gotten really
27:40
good at participating in brawls whereas like criminal you get alert I believe
27:46
yes because that makes sense yes because you want to be very alert yeah look out
27:51
for the the soldiers of the crown or whatever exactly exactly and uh
27:57
people are going to see that alert which is a returning feat has new functionality uh yeah and uh I'm super
28:06
excited about this whole approach that we're taking with backgrounds of it's all about
28:12
building character your character's story and making certain meaningful game mechanic
28:20
choices that reflect the story you have in mind for your character and each of the sample backgrounds that
28:28
we provide are really there to inspire you to show you the kinds of backstories that you
28:35
can have for your character so that's why you're going to see again not only some returning backgrounds uh like
28:42
Soldier like sailor uh uh acolyte but you're also going to see brand new ones
28:48
like cultist uh Pilgrim and a number of
28:53
others all meant to show a different aspect of of a character's life that
29:01
could have been formative in who they are yeah and it's such a good uh it helps for a point of inspiration how you
29:08
role play your character as well yeah yeah and add like the meaningfulness of the backgrounds like backgrounds were
29:15
always cool before but now it's like okay this is this has a lot of them it has it has a lot of
29:21
oomph because its background is also where you can express your character's
29:29
culture where your character is from some of those elements that used to
29:35
exist in some of our character races those elements now exist in background
29:43
that migration of sort of cultural culturally encoded elements migrating to
29:50
background is a philosophy that informs
29:55
a number of the design decisions in this particular UA it's why for instance to
30:01
go back to one of our race options if you look at the dwarf in this unarth Arcana the dwarf does not have uh
30:10
Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf as sub options anymore
30:15
and there's a reason for that it's because those options were only cultural for dwarves
30:22
in our DND worlds those are really cultural designations that different
30:28
dwarf communities have taken on and also in some DND worlds those names don't
30:34
appear at all right yeah and unlike say elves who actually have
30:40
different mystical abilities based on their connections with different environments you know whether it's wood
30:46
elves who have particular magical abilities because of their connection to primeval forests or drow who have you
30:55
know their magical abilities because of the Millennia they've spent in the magic saturated underdark
31:02
dwarves don't have those associations and so instead of having a choice which
31:09
was again cultural and culture now is reflected by background we focused in on
31:14
let's make the dwarf the dwarfiest dwarf and so in a few cases where maybe before there was an there's an option that's
31:21
not there anymore really often the option is just moved someplace else and so any of the
31:28
cultural cues that a person before was searching for in say their dwarf character they can now
31:36
replicate those and often with more oomph in the background system for
31:42
instance if you want to really Lean Into You know the the fairy tale dwarf who
31:49
not only has all the characteristics we expect of a dwarf but you know also is like a minor and some and you know this
31:56
sort of thing that I encourage people to go pick the laborer background where you're going to get all the stuff you
32:03
would expect for a character who's really leaning
32:08
into that archetype this all connects to Monsters of the Multiverse as well absolutely so
32:16
anything that you're seeing here is designed to play side by side with
32:23
books you have already and that includes recent books like Monsters of the Multiverse so the dwarf for instance
32:32
that you see in this on Earth Arcana is meant to exist in the game side by side
32:37
with the dwargar that appears in Monsters of the Multiverse the elf in
32:43
this UA is designed to stand side by side with the sea elf aladrin and Shadow
32:50
Kai who are in Monsters of the Multiverse same with gnomes where we
32:55
have we have the sort of the player's handbook gnome that we're looking at here and then we have the additional
33:01
gnome option of the deep gnome in Monsters of the Multiverse so really
33:07
when you look at the player's handbook version of something it is that is the
33:13
most sort of like archetypal Universal version the most common
33:18
version that you're going to see all of those other versions that we have
33:23
particularly in a book like Monsters of the Multiverse which we designed to be a big collection of options that would
33:31
then be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the options in the new
33:36
core Rule books you then when you put them all together have this amazing family of options and
33:45
these new options don't take away those but instead in many ways
33:52
create some when you look at one and look at the other it really then
33:57
highlights even more what's special about each of the options this pipe test
34:02
material is meant to work and the future product that future players handbook very nicely with the books that already
34:09
exist exactly now there's a lot we could say about the Feats that you're getting
34:15
from those backgrounds correct and uh I'm really excited for people to read
34:22
through all of them to see what's going on in these feats rather than going through each one of
34:29
them uh as much as I would love to because there's so many people there's a lot to look at there's so many fun
34:36
things in these new Feats really what I'd love to do is talk briefly about some of the philosophy behind the
34:42
decision making here I've already talked a bit about some of the things that
34:47
distinguish a first level feat from higher level feeds uh there's another thing uh that informs
34:54
some of the decisions we made about the Feats here and that is first I'll talk about
35:02
Feats we revised and then I'll also talk about brand new Feats so
35:08
whenever we were revising a feat that already existed in the 2014 Players
35:14
handbook and made the determination that it was going to become a first level feat we not only wanted to make sure it was
35:21
delivering something with very clear functionality and clear value
35:28
we also wanted to make sure that the feet is useful to the people who most
35:34
are typically would want to take it here's what I mean by that if you look at the Healer feet in the
35:40
2014 player's handbook you read the title and you think hey I'm playing a life cleric I'm a Healer right
35:48
that's probably a feat I want to take but then if you read it not very beneficial no because that feat
35:55
was actually written for a person who maybe doesn't have any healing ability
36:00
right so we have kind of uh turn that on its head uh and we have now
36:08
made it so that this feat is beneficial to people who are already healers while
36:13
also providing a healing ability to somebody who lacks it so
36:19
that's the kind of the needle we're threading in a lot of these that maybe a feat that before
36:25
seemed to be calling to a particular type of character but then didn't connect with that character at all we
36:31
have now made it so that it is beneficial for that kind of character like many life clerics are now going to
36:37
want to take the Healer feet but then also many non-spell casting
36:42
characters I think might be drawn to the Healer feat because of their characters
36:48
back backstory because of the battle medic ability right that is now in the
36:55
Healer feet that allows you to actually heal somebody using a healer's kit and you'll see that
37:03
again and again in these Feats things that are either going to be beneficial
37:09
for the individual character who we expect would be attracted to the
37:14
feet or beneficial to the whole party here's an example of that in the alert
37:20
feet now first level feet that again the criminal has
37:28
not only do you get a bonus to your initiative role
37:34
but you also now have an ability when initiative is rolled you and another
37:39
member of your party can swap initiative which is amazing I love it and and this
37:46
that ability alone is going to make many groups like oh we are so happy if somebody has alert because we have all
37:53
playing d d been in that situation where like if only this particular character was able to go earlier exactly yeah and
38:01
and so now the character who is because this alert feed is designed to
38:06
mean this is the person who is exceptionally ready to jump into action and can help one of their buddies do so
38:14
and that's another yeah that's another example of like alert was a very like
38:19
for my character only feet like like I just want to be first right
38:24
now you have the option to like pass that on to someone else in your group and be a good party member exactly if
38:29
given the option but yeah like that's that's lovely that's that dual purpose for all these Feats yeah and then and
38:36
and then the brand new Feats are designed to
38:42
fill some character type gaps that existed before gaps that really came to
38:49
mind for us as we were designing the sample backgrounds what's an example of
38:54
one of the new Feats so musician right is one of the new Feats and with the
39:01
musician feat you can not only gain proficiency with three musical
39:07
instruments of your choice and sort of getting the three tool proficiencies used to be a function one of the
39:14
optional functions of the skill defeat but now you get a more flavorful version
39:19
of that not only in the musician feet but also elsewhere so you get to choose three musical
39:25
instruments that you're proficient with but then you also have the ability that
39:30
whenever you finish a short or long rest you can give inspiration to a number of
39:37
people who hear you play a song on one of your instruments and the number of people who can gain
39:45
inspiration is affected by your proficiency bonus so in other words the higher level you get it scales rather
39:52
obviously yeah and and so you know in any group we're like gosh
39:57
we'd really love to have sort of inspiration in our pocket ready to go and for anyone watching who doesn't know
40:03
what inspiration is because a lot of groups don't use it that's essentially having um advantage in your pocket ready
40:10
to use when you need it right uh and so a person with the musician feet using
40:16
this inspiring song can give people inspiration
40:21
so this brand new feat is not only filling a gap in our previous feat list
40:28
but it's also doing exactly what I was talking about earlier about the Healer feat and that is
40:34
it will be useful to also someone who's already a musician most most notably the
40:39
bar the bar because this ability to whenever you finish a rest to give
40:45
certain number of people of inspiration is not an ability that Barda has so this
40:51
combines really nicely with a Bard's kit so you can become the most Barty barred
40:57
or you can play a fighter who also on occasion takes out a loot yeah who
41:04
before battle placed this beautiful song and everyone is like now I'm ready to go
41:09
yeah that's perfect yeah and and and again that is the philosophy here
41:15
throughout is how can we make uh people who again want a taste of something they
41:21
don't have happy but then also make the people who already have the thing also happy magic initiate does this too magic
41:29
initiate like some of the Feats we've published in the past year or two now tells you hey not only do you get some
41:37
spells that you can cast for free but if you already have spell slots you
41:42
can use them to cast these spells too and we we saw this in the evolution of like tashas and other books where
41:49
that you you very key much keyed into the fact that like yeah I got this first level spell but like I can't upcast it
41:56
with magic initiatives right so it's a little like frustrating if that scale if that spell can scale up if you like use
42:04
a higher spell slot and now you can do that yeah if you want to hush rebuke someone right I love doing uh you can do
42:12
so now defeat also uh has been given broader
42:19
functionality because people are going to see uh in this feat a reference to
42:26
something that is new yeah let's talk about that let's talk about I assume
42:31
you're talking about spells and how they're defined yes so not only does the
42:36
magic initiate feat uh refer to what we're about to talk about but there there are references to it elsewhere in
42:43
the dock one of those being in the high elf and that is we now refer to three
42:50
new spell lists there is an Arcane spell list a Divine spell list and a primal
42:56
spell list in our work over the last few years as
43:02
we've been preparing start unveiling this material we realized that as the game expands as
43:10
there are new subclass options uh also with you know the introduction of a class like the artificer
43:18
with Feats with magic items with a variety of things that give you access
43:24
to spells there has been a growing need for us to have a new type of spell list
43:31
and that is a spell list that isn't tied to a particular class but is instead
43:37
tied to really the source of your magic right um and so in this case Arcane
43:45
spells are all about manipulating the background magic that's in the entire Multiverse Divine spells uh as people
43:53
would expect come from either gods or the Realms of the Gods and then Primal
44:00
spells are about drawing on the magic that is in not only sort of the elements
44:07
but also in the spirits of Nature and the way the way we sort of divided is
44:12
divine is really magic pulling from the Outer Planes Primal is pulling from the
44:18
inner planes and Arcane is pulling from sort of the Multiverse writ large
44:24
and so now rather than us directing you for certain Spell choices in particular
44:31
contexts like you know the previous magic initiate was like all right go
44:36
pick from the spell list of one of these particular classes which then suddenly
44:42
the moment we introduce a new class like artificer right then then we need a
44:47
whole new feat for that yeah this feat now grows with the future of the game
44:54
because now any time that we introduce a spell the spell itself will have for you
45:03
a tag that tells you if it's Arcane Divine or Primal or a mix because some
45:09
spells as people are going to see in some of our upcoming on our tarcana fall into multiple categories this is going
45:16
to have a tremendous payoff not only for like oh this later supplement added a new Arcane spell I have access to to the
45:25
Arcane spell list I can now have access to that spell without it having to route
45:31
through a particular class uh much more elegant solution yes and it
45:39
it also is another uh it has another purpose for us it's a way for us to take
45:45
this notion of these sources of magic which are mentioned at least Arcane and
45:50
divine are in the 2014 Players handbook but now we actually sort of give them
45:55
rules teeth rather than just sort of being a story rapper because Arcane and divine and then occasionally Primal when
46:02
it has been mentioned have really just been a flavor wrapper now they actually have substance in the game itself that
46:09
there is a list that you can go look at and go here are the sort of universal
46:15
Arcane spells here are the universal Divine spells and so on now people will
46:21
have to wait for upcoming under tarkanas to see how classes use those lists
46:27
because classes are going to use those lists but classes are also going to have access to spells that go beyond the
46:35
those Universal lists but again that's for that's for future us to talk about
46:41
uh and but again I think I think already this is super exciting being able to
46:47
reveal um these again these new types of spell lists that provide a tremendous amount
46:54
of flexibility for characters not only that will be able to be made with this series of unarth Arcana articles but
47:02
also that will be able to be made in the future yeah it is a very exciting time uh this
47:09
is a very weighty UA we're going to be doing this often this year uh
47:16
uh somewhat semi-monthly but yeah not not necessarily not necessarily strictly
47:24
defined yeah in terms of timing but we have a lot of uas coming out this year we need a lot of player feedback and
47:33
there is so much in this UA that we could talk about yes I know we do we
47:39
we everything and we could have made this a three hour video and and there are
47:46
before we sign off on this video yeah there are a couple other gems in this UA
47:52
I would love to go ahead go ahead yeah I uh I am I'm eager to hear so first I
47:58
encourage people in the rules glossary to look at not only the revised
48:04
definitions of a couple of our conditions they're also going to see there's a new condition that's in play
48:10
the slowed condition and people are going to see in the upcoming on Earth arcanas uh updates to a number of the
48:18
game's conditions so I'm excited to see what people think about that also I encourage people to take a look
48:25
at the new rules for inspiration because we've decided that rather than
48:32
inspiration being connected to essentially just the DM awarding people
48:37
for particular character choices instead inspiration is going to be
48:44
something you can reliably get whenever you roll a 20 on an ability check saving
48:50
throw or attack roll we wanted a way to feed people
48:56
inspiration through the system itself and we love this idea of when you have a
49:02
spectacular success you're inspired by it you bolstered by it and that can
49:08
start creating this sort of Snowball Effect yeah uh and that's what we're going for we've also uh tweaked the rule
49:17
on Inspirations so that it's still the same that you can only ever have one instant of of inspiration you don't get
49:23
the stockpile inspiration it's not you either have it or you don't but we've now made it so that if something in the
49:30
game gives you inspiration and you already have it you can then immediately give it to one of the other characters
49:37
in your group oh that's fantastic uh and it's likely that people are going to
49:43
have it because you get it by Rolling a 20 and one of the new traits of humans
49:48
in the game is humans whenever they finish a long rest have inspiration and so every human in your
49:56
group is going to start every adventuring day with inspiration and that means then if the human gets
50:02
inspiration and already has it they can then give inspiration to somebody else I think there's going to be a really fun
50:08
sort of you know inspiration flowing around yeah in the party
50:14
and what people are going to see as they actually experience this in play
50:20
what the system is intentionally doing is encouraging you to use the inspiration because there's more is
50:27
coming uh it's just like really yeah I don't know what I'm gonna need this exactly and it's we we often when we're
50:35
assessing different parts of the system uh if we see something that ends up getting hoarded so much that it actually
50:42
almost never sees use yeah that to us tells we need to change something so
50:48
that this actually becomes a fun part of play and not something that just gets marked during your character sheet and
50:54
then you forget about it is this the moment that I use it that that kind of almost anxiety like right like I've been
50:59
in Somalia you and I have been in so many one shots where it's like well I never used it yeah yeah exactly it's
51:05
gone forever whereas we want to make it easy for people to say yes yeah to say yes I'm going to use my inspiration uh
51:13
because it's likely more is coming right around the corner the gang of natural 20 thing is so exciting because like you
51:19
that's such a cinematic moment or like a great narrative moment of like I I've been very successful and now I have a
51:26
little bit left over and that could you could roll another 20 it could keep going and going and going and and to see
51:33
a game where like something like that happens I mean the odds are are
51:39
not high but they're higher now to see something like kind of amazing at the
51:44
table yeah yeah that's very very fun so critical hits have changed as well can you elaborate on on that
51:51
we are experimenting in this on Earth Arcana with a new take on the critical
51:57
hit so in addition to Rolling a 20 now feeding you inspiration whether it's an
52:04
ability check saving thrower attack roll we've now specified that if it's an
52:10
attacker and you roll a 20 it's also a critical hit as you would expect but what's different here is it's
52:19
only a critical hit if you were attacking with a weapon or an unarmed strike
52:24
now in most cases in our game that was already the case in actual play
52:32
because most spells in the game trigger saving throws rather than involving an
52:38
attack roll so spells scoring Critical Hits was a more sort of rare occurrence
52:44
than weapons scoring them but we're exploring this option and
52:50
again I really want to emphasize this is a great example of a play test giving us the chance to experiment with something
52:56
remember this is not set in stone right exactly uh we we want to see what does
53:06
the community think and how does this play out for them because what we're really trying to do is carve out a
53:13
clearer space for essentially Spell
53:18
operations on one side and weapon and unarmed strike operations on the other
53:24
and the critical hit was already confusing for a number of people because
53:30
I've actually lost count over the last eight years the number of times I've been asked by the community can spell
53:38
score a critical hit so funnily this this experiment in this UA will function for
53:46
many groups the way they were already playing because many groups had doubt that spells could actually critical even
53:51
though they could right and so now we're experimenting with well just what if they can't and this is a function of
54:00
weapon use and unarmed strike use which then also allows for us to do
54:05
greater Clarity because then it's there's not that fuzziness before of like take the dice that were involved in
54:12
the attack and roll them twice no now we Zoom way in it's take the weapon or the
54:17
unarmed strikes dice and roll them a second time now of
54:22
course people know that some people don't have dice for their unarmed strikes but monks and others absolutely
54:28
do and we wanted to make sure this critical hit option was available for them in addition to characters who rely
54:35
more on weapons now there's an additional Nuance here the way we have
54:41
worded this experimental rule it is only player characters who score Critical Hits
54:48
now I need to unpack that well it's kind so first
54:55
uh critical hits for Monsters often play out in
55:02
uh strange unsatisfying or terrifying ways and I'll
55:09
unpack I'll unpack those first they can be terrifying higher level terrifying is fine
55:16
first level terrifying can mean the character is gone uh so crits are extremely dangerous at
55:23
low levels for player characters you know that bug bear critting your first level character might mean that's
55:30
it your character is on on its on their way to the Grave yeah uh
55:35
and but then other times because of how a
55:41
monster's damage expression is built a monster critical hit can feel
55:47
unsatisfying uh and the DM might say there was a crit but the math doesn't
55:53
really deliver the punch that you you were expecting when the DM said that
56:00
also because a lot of DMS use static damage our crit role where you're
56:05
rolling a die a second time there's friction between that rule and how
56:10
monsters are actually designed and then there's a further reason that we're experimenting with this and that
56:16
is Monster's actually already have their own built-in crit like mechanic
56:25
and that is the recharge mechanic we use recharge abilities to deliver
56:31
those scary massive strikes right think
56:37
of the dragon's breath weapon when that happens everyone has put on notice and that is
56:42
the scary moment the DM decides when to use it so the DM
56:48
can make an informed decision when to crank up the difficulty in a battle the
56:55
DM has no control over a critical hit now uncertainty is also fun because we like
57:00
DMS being surprised but that's where the recharge role comes in because the DM wants the DM decides to essentially
57:07
press the things are going to get real big of the button back they're not sure
57:14
when they get the button back yeah yeah and so there is already this element of uncertainty purposefully built into the
57:21
recharge mechanic and so what we're exploring is this notion of really
57:28
monsters don't need crits because they have crits in another form and that is in recharge abilities and those the DM
57:36
has a bit more control over even though it's not total control because again once you use the DM doesn't know when
57:42
it's coming back uh that is that that modicum of control
57:47
is more in keeping with what we expect for a dungeon master and so we're exploring the crit as it's
57:54
essentially a special ability of player characters of occasionally they score
58:01
these surprisingly good hits that deal more damage than uh the weapon or
58:07
unarmed strike would normally deal uh this is this is a rule I I am very keen
58:14
to get feedback on and hope people will try it out in their game and
58:21
then we'll see where we go next Once once we get the feedback on it related to Rolling the D20 there's also another
58:28
significant thing in the rules glossary that uh I encourage people to take a
58:34
look at and that is we have decided to embrace how many
58:40
groups actually play and that is when you roll a 1 or a 20 for an ability
58:46
check saving thrower attack roll right a one is an automatic failure and a 20 is an automatic success
58:53
it will surprise some people watching that that's a change because I yeah I know because I've been doing it I don't
58:59
know for like 10 years yes uh because for yeah anyone who might not know previously a 20 meeting on
59:06
automatic success in a one meeting on automatic failure was only a function of the attack role right not of ability
59:13
checks and saving throws but what we have seen over the last eight years is
59:18
more and more groups use that rule for all of the D20 tests and we decided
59:25
rather than having the rules being in friction with how people actually play
59:31
the game let's update the rules so that the game plays the way people expect it to well
59:38
that's what's so much it was in this first play test material is much of that yes of how people
59:45
actually play or want to play because we over the last eight years through the
59:52
many uh surveys that people have filled out that have been valuable to our work
59:57
we've been listening we've been paying attention we watch streamed games we constantly play DND and all of that
1:00:05
feedback all of that play all of that observation has fed into what people are
1:00:12
seeing in this unearth Arcana and what they're going to see in the months ahead there there's two sides of the play test
1:00:18
material like this is a moment in time where like all of everyone's feedback has led to this play test material and
1:00:25
your feedback after this is going to lead to the final version so be sure to
1:00:31
play test absolutely because this is not the final version everything here is subject to change uh
1:00:39
this is really this UA in particular is our hello yeah hello we're listening yeah yeah and
1:00:47
the feedback that then the community provides in response will help determine
1:00:55
what parts of this make it into the new core books what parts do we set to the
1:01:02
side and what parts do we keep but change and so what everyone is going to
1:01:07
see just like with the DND Next process almost 10 years ago you're going to see an evolution
1:01:14
in these playtest materials in the game itself
1:01:20
also the exciting thing I think for everyone is you're going to be able to use all of these playtest stocks with
1:01:27
your existing core books we have designed these docs so that you can take
1:01:32
each one and other than the places where we tell you all right you know that thing in your book well here's here's an
1:01:39
update to it otherwise all this material works with the core books you already
1:01:44
have meaning the uas that are ahead will be very
1:01:50
targeted rather than it being like here is a cross-section of the of the entire game right instead we're going to drill
1:01:57
into one piece because that piece will now work with the books you have already
1:02:04
and so that's why you know in in coming ones we're going to drill deep on particular classes and then eventually
1:02:10
we'll drill deep on particular spells as we build this it's almost like we're
1:02:17
building a mosaic that in the end and you know once all the pieces are in
1:02:22
place you will get a glimpse of what the new core books are going to look like this has to be very exciting for you
1:02:29
like beyond the rules and the play test this is like a very exciting time to be a d d fan yeah and to be making DND yeah
1:02:36
yeah no it's it's wonderfully exciting uh because we're able to take something
1:02:42
that we love feed the passion that we in the community have had for it over the last
1:02:48
eight years feed all the conversations we've had internally that we've had with
1:02:54
fans out in the world and take all of that and let it flow into the game
1:02:59
itself so that it can move now into its its
1:03:05
next generation it's perfect I am excited for I'm very
1:03:10
excited for this video and for many more to come over the next few years yeah yeah excellent all right and uh
1:03:17
people will get access to this UA uh on D beyond.com yes that is also where you
1:03:24
get to play test and that will be coming out sometime after this video first
1:03:30
lands so for this particular one uh later today you should get access
1:03:36
to that I think that's it right yeah okay we're not going to be busy at all
1:03:42
thank you so much thank you


----------



## Shardstone

Files drop at 3pm est.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Exciting times. The title of the first playtest (Origins) seems to imply it's just that, but the associated video trails a ton of rules-changes, like 1/20 always fails/passes on everything, automatically get Inspiration on a nat 20, etc.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Exciting times. The title of the first playtest (Origins) seems to imply it's just that, but the associated video trails a ton of rules-changes, like 1/20 always fails/passes on everything, automatically get Inspiration on a nat 20, etc.



It covers Race and Background (which is centered on Feats). Crawford describes all the rule elements that need explanation tied to those two choices.


----------



## Leatherhead

The Video goes over some interesting points:
Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts and a level 1 feat.
Feats are now separated into levels, level 1 feats don't have stats, higher level feats can have a +1 bonus for a stat in order to soften the blow of having to pick between ASIs and a Feat.
Crits are a player only thing, with spells not being able to crit, effectively Martial only.
The spell lists are going to be split up into Arcane, Divine, and Primal. Classes will pick one of the lists and have additional spells added to their lists. 
Races are going to get new options. 
Inspiration is going to be reworked so that the DM doesn't have to remember it all the time.


----------



## Thaumaturge

Cultist is a background. 

Now I want to make a PC named Teft. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Shardstone

Parmandur said:


> It covers Race and Background (which is centered on Feats). Crawford describes all the rule elements that need explanation tied to those two choices.



And way more then that. It covers the inspiration rules, the new spell lists, and more.


----------



## Parmandur

Shardstone said:


> And way more then that. It covers the inspiration rules, the new spell lists, and more.



Because Races and Geats touch on Inspiration. The new Musician Feat gives Inspiration, for example.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Monsters don't crit?  As if D&D needed to be EVEN EASIER.

You can auto succeed an ability check with a nat 20?  So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?  Sure.  Why not.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> It covers Race and Background (which is centered on Feats). Crawford describes all the rule elements that need explanation tied to those two choices.



Presumably they'll have to write that stuff down in the playtest though, because not everyone is going to watch 40+ minutes into a 1hr video lol.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DarkCrisis said:


> Monsters don't crit?  As if D&D needed to be EVEN EASIER.
> 
> You can auto succeed an ability check with a nat 20?  So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?  Sure.  Why not.



They may also be changing it so DMs can not let you roll at all if you're not Proficient, though. In which case that would solve that problem.


----------



## Shardstone

DarkCrisis said:


> Monsters don't crit?  As if D&D needed to be EVEN EASIER.
> 
> You can auto succeed an ability check with a nat 20?  So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?  Sure.  Why not.



They are focusing on monster recharge mechanics as their big thing.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

DarkCrisis said:


> Monsters don't crit?  As if D&D needed to be EVEN EASIER.
> 
> You can auto succeed an ability check with a nat 20?  So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?  Sure.  Why not.



You don't roll if you can't succeed.


----------



## Morrus

Leatherhead said:


> Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts



What a good idea!


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Adding Tiefling Fiendish Origin options makes me happy.

Cthonic Tiefling means I can finally roll up my family of Arcanaloth-spawn (blame Shemeska's Planescape Story Hour) without having to resort to homebrew.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Presumably they'll have to write that stuff down in the playtest though, because not everyone is going to watch 40+ minutes into a 1hr video lol.



Sounds like there is a rules Glossary than explains the relevant changes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

They're going to major class revision UAs through this process.

Thank god.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> They may also be changing it so DMs can not let you roll at all if you're not Proficient, though. In which case that would solve that problem.



I already do that for some rolls.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

I'm sure like any other UA they are starting off a little too extreme and the final version will be backed off into the realm of reasonableness.


----------



## Parmandur

Future UAs will be highly targeted on specific element, since the rules framework is not changing.


----------



## Charlaquin

Anyone else amused that the most obvious abbreviation for this would be OD&D?


----------



## Shardstone

Charlaquin said:


> Anyone else amused that the most obvious abbreviation for this would be OD&D?



W/o a doubt intentional.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Anyone else amused that the most obvious abbreviation for this would be OD&D?



And only but a few people online will be angry about it.


----------



## Plaguescarred

A lot of things we learn in the new video about 1D&D feels weird to me but at the same time _Unearthed Arcana_ meterial is there to Playtest. Things like Crit being weapon/unarmed attack only generated by PCs and not DM, Crits and Human granting Inspiration, which are transferrable will be more common occurance, ASI through Background makes the whole Character Creation deconstructed even if in the final it looks similar to a 5E one.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Adding Tiefling Fiendish Origin options makes me happy.
> 
> Cthonic Tiefling means I can finally roll up my family of Arcanaloth-spawn (blame Shemeska's Planescape Story Hour) without having to resort to homebrew.



please explain please?


----------



## TwoSix

I'm definitely feeling like sorcerer is going to go in the PF2 direction and be able to use any of the arcane/divine/primal spell lists based on subclass.  (Warlock will probably work this way too, depending on patron.)

Curious to see how bard will be handled, and what, if any, features wizards will get to enhance their spell access versatility.


----------



## Aldarc

While Ardlings are interesting, I hope that they are not in the One D&D PHB. I would probably prefer another popular player race: e.g., goblins, goliaths, genasi, kobolds, etc.


----------



## Vaalingrade

They're thinking about the feeling of progression when it comes to feats?

;_;

My little boys are growing up!


----------



## Shardstone

Vaalingrade said:


> They're thinking about the feeling of progression when it comes to feats?
> 
> ;_;
> 
> My little boys are growing up!



The Great Leap Forward, eh?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Actually gaining Hope for D&D One 360 Box.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> While Ardlings are interesting, I hope that they are not in the One D&D PHB. I would probably prefer another popular player race: e.g., goblins, goliaths, genasi, kobolds, etc.



The fact that they're getting a strong spotlight on the official announcement makes me feel their exclusion is pretty unlikely.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I would love if they had a better name since for some reason NONE of them is an aardvark.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> Exciting times. The title of the first playtest (Origins) seems to imply it's just that, but the associated video trails a ton of rules-changes, like 1/20 always fails/passes on everything, automatically get Inspiration on a nat 20, etc.



The UA should be backgrounds and races or maybe just races. I haven't gotten through the whole video


----------



## overgeeked

Seems like a mixed bag of ideas. Am I hearing that right in that ability scores are no longer a function of race but rather your background? The video seems to plant that flag solidly. They never say race doesn't give you ability scores bonuses, but they repeatedly say that background does now. Unless you're getting two sets of +2/+1...which would make sense with the auto success on a 20 and no more monster crits.

ETA: Is it a bit of a red flag to anyone else that the playtest material drops today and the survey opens on Sept 1st? Literally two weeks from now. That doesn't fill me with confidence that 1) people will actually playtest these things, or that; 2) feedback will actually matter.


----------



## dave2008

Mind of tempest said:


> please explain please?



Infernal = Lawful evil fiendish origin
Abyssal = Chaotic evil fiendish origin
Cthonic = Neutral evil fiendish origin


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> Seems like a mixed bag of ideas. Am I hearing that right in that ability scores are no longer a function of race but rather your background? The video seems to plant that flag solidly. They never say race doesn't give you ability scores bonuses, but they repeatedly say that background does now. Unless you're getting two sets of +2/+1...which would make sense with the auto success on a 20 and no more monster crits.



Well it is a playtest with a survey on 9/1


----------



## Paul Farquhar

dave2008 said:


> Cthonic = Neutral evil fiendish origin



Or Far Realms origin?

Although technically, Cthonic means "underground".


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Mind of tempest said:


> please explain please?



Tieflings get a to choose between the existing "Infernal" origin/legacy as well as an Abyssal or Cthonic one, representing a choice between having ties to the LE, CE, or NE lower planes respectively.

No details beyond that at the moment, as the PDFs aren't actually out yet, but "devil-spawn-only" tieflings are seemingly being opened back up to a more generic tiefling with options for devil, demon, and 'loth spawn.


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> Am I hearing that right in that ability scores are no longer a function of race but rather your background?



I like that idea personally.


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> Or Far Realms origin?
> 
> Although technically, Cthonic means "underground".



In the video Crawford explains it is neutral evil fiendish origins.  I didn't make it up.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

dave2008 said:


> In the video Crawford explains it is neutral evil fiendish origins.  I didn't make it up.



Boring. Lawful evil, chaotic evil, and boring evil.


----------



## grimslade

Charlaquin said:


> Anyone else amused that the most obvious abbreviation for this would be OD&D?



I already thought of it as 1D&De


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Paul Farquhar said:


> Or Far Realms origin?
> 
> Although technically, Cthonic means "underground".



Cthonic as a descriptor also refers to deities with connections to the Underworld, such as Hades.

Cthonic => Hades => The Gray Wastes of Hades (i.e. the pure NE plane of the Great Wheel) => Yugoloths


----------



## dave2008

Feats will all have levels in the UA playtest.

PS It sure seems feats are optional anymore


----------



## TwoSix

overgeeked said:


> Seems like a mixed bag of ideas. Am I hearing that right in that ability scores are no longer a function of race but rather your background? The video seems to plant that flag solidly. They never say race doesn't give you ability scores bonuses, but they repeatedly say that background does now. Unless you're getting two sets of +2/+1...which would make sense with the auto success on a 20 and no more monster crits.



Around 19:40 he says pretty explicitly that the bonuses will _instead_ be in the background section.


----------



## Scribe

dave2008 said:


> Infernal = Lawful evil fiendish origin
> Abyssal = Chaotic evil fiendish origin
> Cthonic = Neutral evil fiendish origin



Love it.


----------



## overgeeked

dave2008 said:


> Well it is a playtest with a survey on 9/1



Yeah. They can't honestly think two weeks is sufficient time to actually playtest these things. Either that or they've already decided and the "survey" is just PR smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Vaalingrade

They're talking about Teamwork and being a good team member.

My god, what is happening?


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​1st level feats will not have a +1 to an ability score, that is reserved for higher level feats


----------



## Demetrios1453

Paul Farquhar said:


> Or Far Realms origin?
> 
> Although technically, Cthonic means "underground".



Chthonic in this case probably refers to the traditional NE death deities like Hades and Hel, and their undergeound nature, and just extrapolating that to NE as a whole, as there isn't another good adjective.


----------



## Parmandur

Paul Farquhar said:


> Or Far Realms origin?
> 
> Although technically, Cthonic means "underground".



They've used "Cthonic" for Yugoloths in the past.


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. They can't honestly think two weeks is sufficient time to actually playtest these things. Either that or they've already decided and the "survey" is just PR smoke and mirrors.



Well you will have many opportunities to comment on it. Feats are going to be in several playtests it seams.

Also, some people can definitely playtest these in 2 weeks. Not me, but some definitely can


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> The fact that they're getting a strong spotlight on the official announcement makes me feel their exclusion is pretty unlikely.



Also that they seemed to design the Rave to appeal to Tumblr fan artists (not a knock at all).


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Seems like a mixed bag of ideas. Am I hearing that right in that ability scores are no longer a function of race but rather your background? The video seems to plant that flag solidly. They never say race doesn't give you ability scores bonuses, but they repeatedly say that background does now. Unless you're getting two sets of +2/+1...which would make sense with the auto success on a 20 and no more monster crits.
> 
> ETA: Is it a bit of a red flag to anyone else that the playtest material drops today and the survey opens on Sept 1st? Literally two weeks from now. That doesn't fill me with confidence that 1) people will actually playtest these things, or that; 2) feedback will actually matter.



Yes, the ASI is entirely relates to Background now, not Race.


----------



## Kurotowa

I'm going to lay a long term bet on something we'll see when the Classes UA comes out in a month or two.

Two things struck me about the new crit scheme. One is that crits are smaller; limited to only PCs, only weapon users, and only double the weapon die. The other is that in talking about why they took crits away from monsters, he said they were emphasizing recharge abilities, that have the burst damage potential of crits and retain some uncertainty but are triggered at the DM's choosing and aren't as wildly unpredictable (and likely to gib low level characters).

So what if the new model is that PCs get burst damage capabilities that aren't tied to crits? Which spellcasters already have, really, when they choose to break out their high level spell slots. But what if this means that martial classes are going to get more impactful burst damage class features? Something that lets them break out the big guns for dramatic moments without having to crit fish.

Anyway, that's my crazy prediction.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Parmandur said:


> They've used "Cthonic" for Yugoloths in the past.



Probably to try and make them sound less boring.


----------



## overgeeked

TwoSix said:


> Around 19:40 he says pretty explicitly that the bonuses will _instead_ be in the background section.



"Where those bonuses now live *in this playtest material* is in the background section."

So for this playtest, backgrounds give you ability score bonuses. 

Doesn't say anything about races not giving bonuses nor anything about there they will be in the revised PHB. 

You could be 100% right. But it's not as explicit as you seem to think.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Kurotowa said:


> aren't as wildly unpredictable (and likely to gib low level characters).



Where's the fun in that?!


----------



## darjr

I've added the full transcript to the OP in a spoiler block.


----------



## Vaalingrade

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. They can't honestly think two weeks is sufficient time to actually playtest these things. Either that or they've already decided and the "survey" is just PR smoke and mirrors.



This set of materials JUST covers character creation. Even HERO doesn't take two weeks for chargen.


----------



## TwoSix

Dwarven subraces going away; that's not a huge surprise.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

TwoSix said:


> Dwarven subraces going away; that's not a huge surprise.



Yes, those sandwich eating competitions were becoming a real health hazard.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oh my god, he just discussed proper tagging in the context of future-proofing.

And a rules glossary! A D&D Designer is thinking about glossaries. Doctor Strange really did break the multiverse!


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Also that they seemed to design the Rave to appeal to Tumblr fan artists (not a knock at all).



A shame. It seems like other races have earned that spot.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Since we're getting three types of tieflings based on planar origin, are we getting three types of aasimar/ardlings as well? At work and can't watch the stream...


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Actually gaining Hope for D&D One 360 Box.



Series D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. They can't honestly think two weeks is sufficient time to actually playtest these things. Either that or they've already decided and the "survey" is just PR smoke and mirrors.



that may be a good thing...


----------



## darjr

Sacrosanct said:


> I may have missed it, but is this a change?  RAW now, a nat 20 is not an automatic success for saving throws or skill checks.



I don't think they were. At least I kept reminding my AL players of that. My home game it is.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Oh god, his discussion on Inspiration.

They're thinking about Inspiration and how the game is actually played.

Could this be the beginning of a terrifying Planet of the Designers? In this reporter's opinion, almost certainly yes.

I mean, classes will almost certainly fail me, but for now I'm seeing good design chops for the first time in almost a decade and I'm a bit weepy, okay?


----------



## darjr

Question? Is any of this a deal breaker if I were to, say, run the Tiamat adventure?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

darjr said:


> Question? Is any of this a deal breaker if I were to, say, run the Tiamat adventure?



Low level characters won't get ganked by dragons in the first encounter, and you will have to run the whole thing?


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> that may be a good thing...



Not actually playtesting a "playtest"? No, that's generally a bad thing. Because it's either not actually a playtest (mostly PR) or it's going to provide bad data (thus defeating the entire point of running a playtest).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Question? Is any of this a deal breaker if I were to, say, run the Tiamat adventure?



so far no, but the problem will be mix and match... a player making a race from 2014 phb but the background from a newer book will not work well (getting an extra +2/+1)


----------



## Thaumaturge

Demetrios1453 said:


> Since we're getting three types of tieflings based on planar origin, are we getting three types of aasimar/ardlings as well? At work and can't watch the stream...



Yes. One for each of the good-aligned planes. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## overgeeked

One thing I was surprised about is Crawford saying they wanted players to spend inspiration more freely, but that they were keeping the binary state of having or not having inspiration. If you want players to spend inspiration, you can't only give it to them more often, you have to give them more instances of it. I've seen this in playing Fate and in 5E when I raised the limit of inspiration PCs could have. Once they knew they could have several at a time, poof, they stopped treating them like they were precious and started actually using them.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Not actually playtesting a "playtest"? No, that's generally a bad thing. Because it's either not actually a playtest (mostly PR) or it's going to provide bad data (thus defeating the entire point of running a playtest).



I mean I get that... but it could mean they  have a good idea today what it will look like


----------



## Shardstone

overgeeked said:


> One thing I was surprised about is Crawford saying they wanted players to spend inspiration more freely, but that they were keeping the binary state of having or not having inspiration. If you want players to spend inspiration, you can't only give it to them more often, you have to give them more instances of it. I've seen this in playing Fate and in 5E when I raised the limit of inspiration PCs could have. Once they knew they could have several at a time, poof, they stopped treating them like they were precious and started actually using them.



Well now you can give inspiration to someone who doesn't have it when you get it, changing the metric from "Do I have inspiration" to "Do we all have inspiration"


----------



## Thaumaturge

overgeeked said:


> One thing I was surprised about is Crawford saying they wanted players to spend inspiration more freely, but that they were keeping the binary state of having or not having inspiration. If you want players to spend inspiration, you can't only give it to them more often, you have to give them more instances of it. I've seen this in playing Fate and in 5E when I raised the limit of inspiration PCs could have. Once they knew they could have several at a time, poof, they stopped treating them like they were precious and started actually using them.



Please leave that as playtest feedback. That seems like a good idea. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Vaalingrade

overgeeked said:


> One thing I was surprised about is Crawford saying they wanted players to spend inspiration more freely, but that they were keeping the binary state of having or not having inspiration. If you want players to spend inspiration, you can't only give it to them more often, you have to give them more instances of it. I've seen this in playing Fate and in 5E when I raised the limit of inspiration PCs could have. Once they knew they could have several at a time, poof, they stopped treating them like they were precious and started actually using them.



You can not get Inspiration for a natural 20, so there's also a route beyond hoping the DM decides you've pleased them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Aldarc said:


> While Ardlings are interesting, I hope that they are not in the One D&D PHB. I would probably prefer another popular player race: e.g., goblins, goliaths, genasi, kobolds, etc.



What is an Ardling?


----------



## Shardstone

Charlaquin said:


> What is an Ardling?



Animal-faced celestial race, the new tiefling mirror.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Okay, I'm very much hoping they explain the recharge = monster crit concept in the actual MM/DMG. Because he's right, but no one is going to remember this interview when people start getting mad about it.

Also, more crap needs recharge abilities.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> What is an Ardling?



an animal like plane touched


----------



## Parmandur

Demetrios1453 said:


> Since we're getting three types of tieflings based on planar origin, are we getting three types of aasimar/ardlings as well? At work and can't watch the stream...



Yup, three choices each for Lawfuk, Neutral, and Chaotic Outsiders.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Demetrios1453 said:


> Since we're getting three types of tieflings based on planar origin, are we getting three types of aasimar/ardlings as well? At work and can't watch the stream...



Aasimar are staying as they are in Monsters of the Multiverse, but per the video Ardlings are going to have three options to choose from corresponding to the LG, NG, and CG planes (don't have the names on hand at the moment, but Crawford mentions them).

EDIT: The three options for Ardling are Exalted, Heavenly, and Idyllic, though he doesn't mention which corresponds to which planar alignment ( though we can probably guess).


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Feats:

Feats have a level
1st level feats will not have ASI
Revised Feats: 

Example: Healer. 2014 Not useful for life clerics.  Revised to give a benefit to people without healing powers and people with healers.
Example: Alert (1st lvl). bonus to initiative & can swap initiative with another member of group
Make feats useful to those they should be (healer = cleric) or the whole party (Alert)
Example: Magic Initiate. Get free spells and if you have spells slot you can cast them too. 
New Feats:

New feats to fill character gaps
Came to mind when design backgrounds
Example: Musician. 3 instrument proficiencies. Give inspiration to people who play your song for


----------



## Parmandur

Vaalingrade said:


> Actually gaining Hope for D&D One 360 Box.



Man. I'm extremely positive, but that naming. Is there something in the water out of Puget Sound or something?


----------



## overgeeked

Shardstone said:


> Well now you can give inspiration to someone who doesn't have it when you get it, changing the metric from "Do I have inspiration" to "Do we all have inspiration"



Yes, however, players will still treat it as precious and not spend them unless they need to. Like saving inspiration for the big boss fight. Being able to spread inspiration around is great, but it being binary still makes it something to hoard. I can't see any player spending an inspiration because everyone in the group is full just so there's no lost inspiration. According to the video, you get inspiration from nat 20s, humans "overflowing" inspiration, and musicians after a rest.


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Three new spell lists:

Arcane
Divine
Primal
Classes will have spells that go beyond those list. 

So a Wizard has access to any Arcane spell and some extra spells? Will be explained more in a future playtest (this one does not have classes)


----------



## ehren37

TwoSix said:


> Curious to see how bard will be handled, and what, if any, features wizards will get to enhance their spell access versatility.



Heh, is "cannot cast spells higher than 2nd level of two opposition schools" an option? IMO, they have too much versatility as is. Enforcing opposition schools would leave power budget to make them a bit better in their specialty (and more differentiated from each other) and possibly improve the low level wizard experience a bit.


----------



## dave2008

Demetrios1453 said:


> Since we're getting three types of tieflings based on planar origin, are we getting three types of aasimar/ardlings as well? At work and can't watch the stream...



Yes to three types of ardlings


----------



## halfling rogue

I understand revised/reorganized One D&D is compatible with 5e, but I don't understand how it isn't effectively 5.5e.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Question? Is any of this a deal breaker if I were to, say, run the Tiamat adventure?



Nope.


----------



## Yaarel

Spell tags for Arcane, Divine, Primal.

I want to see a Psionic tag here too, especially for divination and mind-affecting spells.


----------



## Parmandur

halfling rogue said:


> I understand revised/reorganized One D&D is compatible with 5e, but I don't understand how it isn't effectively 5.5e.



It's effectively 6E, but they aren't calling it that.


----------



## dave2008

dave2008 said:


> Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Three new spell lists:
> 
> Arcane
> Divine
> Primal



EDIT: I guess this would make it easy to add a Psionic spell list


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> Man. I'm extremely positive, but that naming. Is there something in the water out of Puget Sound or something?



IT sounds like a name you get when your cult leader is just in it for the money.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ehren37 said:


> Heh, is "cannot cast spells higher than 2nd level of two opposition schools" an option? IMO, they have too much versatility as is. Enforcing opposition schools would leave power budget to make them a bit better in their specialty (and more differentiated from each other) and possibly improve the low level wizard experience a bit.



I would like taht


----------



## GMforPowergamers

halfling rogue said:


> I understand revised/reorganized One D&D is compatible with 5e, but I don't understand how it isn't effectively 5.5e.



because they said so


----------



## Scribe

Parmandur said:


> Also that they seemed to design the Rave to appeal to Tumblr fan artists (not a knock at all).



How so?


----------



## DEFCON 1

6E, 5.5E, 5E+, 1D&D... does any of those terms actually matter?  The game's the game.  Call it the 'Fred Edition' for that matter if you want.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> because they said so



Which is a lot of what this is, honestly. A lot of the early discussion in that video seemed to be minor variations of "it's in the book, so that's the limit" so they're now revising things to make it even more explicit that no, you really can use your imagination and make stuff up. Like small humans. I'm here for it...but that seems a bit odd. Are that many people still locked into the "unless the rule book gives me explicit permission, it's not allowed" mindset? If that's a thing, why not have that explicitly in every race? No reason you couldn't have a small orc or a medium goblin. Once you're not talking about humans it's all fantasy anyway. Not complaining about the change, just surprised that the designers seem to think they need to make that explicit in the rules.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Man. I'm extremely positive, but that naming. Is there something in the water out of Puget Sound or something?



Numbering sequels and the like has been unpopular for a while now. At least they didn’t follow the latest trend of just slapping  a “The” in front of the title.


----------



## overgeeked

DEFCON 1 said:


> 6E, 5.5E, 5E+, 1D&D... does any of those terms actually matter?  The game's the game.  Call it the 'Fred Edition' for that matter if you want.



I hope Fred is the one that sticks. "Hey, everyone, let's play Fred!"


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Revised conditions (future UA).

Added "Slowed" condition
New rules for inspiration.

You get inspiration when you roll a 20.
If have inspiration, and you get inspiration from another source you can give that extra inspiration to a party member (you can't have 2 instances yourself)
Humans start each day with inspiration


----------



## THEMNGMNT

I've houseruled that Inspiration is awarded on a roll of 1. I took that idea from Cortex, where a failure can boost your chance of future success.


----------



## tetrasodium

25:58
"Your not only getting a benefit, it's a benefit your character didn't have before.  This is a pure additionthat we're providing now for everybody.  _and_ we have that in mind as we decide what qualifies as a first level feat & what doesn't.  Basically anything that's going to dramatically increase character power in some way, people are not going to see as a first level feat.  That is the domain of higher level feats where the game's math can handle adjustments to raw power.  Most first level feats are about increasing a character's versatility & speaking to different key backstories.  You'll see that these feats .. are all featured in at least one of the sample backgrounds in this document.  You can also see looking at the sample backgrounds how to match first level feats with a background if you decide to build your own background"

Vague magic changes 
New & modified conditions too.


----------



## Justice and Rule

I feel like someone in the meeting made the same mistake that the Microsoft people did and were like "They say it just the number, right, so if we call it 'One' they'll say "Let's go play _the One_."

But these are positive developments! At the least, I can see they are taking inspiration from some more tightly-designed systems. Finally admitting that Feats are a thing was smart, and giving a bit more bang for your background buck is good, too. Not sure they are going to change enough for me to come back and run it myself, but hopefully it'll be more fun for me to play when someone else is running it.


----------



## ehren37

THEMNGMNT said:


> I've houseruled that Inspiration is awarded on a roll of 1. I took that idea from Cortex, where a failure can boost your chance of future success.



I like this... other than poor lucky halflings!


----------



## Yaarel

I love the mechanical directions 5e is taking. Also, playtesting and feedback is vital to the success.


----------



## Justice and Rule

THEMNGMNT said:


> I've houseruled that Inspiration is awarded on a roll of 1. I took that idea from Cortex, where a failure can boost your chance of future success.




The new _Legend of the Five Rings _system has something like this, where if you fail because of your flaw/disadvantage, you gain a "void point" which gives you bonuses for other things. Helps get people to not avoid their character flaws, and roleplay better.


----------



## Charlaquin

overgeeked said:


> Which is a lot of what this is, honestly. A lot of the early discussion in that video seemed to be minor variations of "it's in the book, so that's the limit" so they're now revising things to make it even more explicit that no, you really can use your imagination and make stuff up. Like small humans. I'm here for it...but that seems a bit odd. Are that many people still locked into the "unless the rule book gives me explicit permission, it's not allowed" mindset? If that's a thing, why not have that explicitly in every race? No reason you couldn't have a small orc or a medium goblin. Once you're not talking about humans it's all fantasy anyway. Not complaining about the change, just surprised that the designers seem to think they need to make that explicit in the rules.



The thing is, if it’s not in the book you need the DM’s permission to do it. If it’s in the book, the DM has to ban it if they don’t want you to do it, and that means the rest of the table has the opportunity to advocate against banning it.

5e went hard towards Trad, now the pendulum is swinging back towards OC.


----------



## Mind of tempest

what is a rave?


----------



## DEFCON 1

overgeeked said:


> I hope Fred is the one that sticks. "Hey, everyone, let's play Fred!"



Now that I think about it... the only problem with 'Fred' is that a couple of our more angsty board members will see that and presume it stands for *F*orgotten *R*ealms *Ed*ition... and get even more bent out of shape believing Faerun is the default setting for the game.


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Critical Hits (experimental) - emphasized this is playtest and not set in stone

20 gives inspiration
20 on attack is a crit, but only if you attack with a weapon or unarmed strike (nerf to spells)
to differentiate spells and weapons / unarmed strikes
roll weapon or unarmed strike dice twice
only player characters score critical hits
Recharge abilities are like a monster's crit, so monsters don't need them. The DM can control the tension, no accidental crits  leading to character death


----------



## Vaalingrade

DEFCON 1 said:


> 6E, 5.5E, 5E+, 1D&D... does any of those terms actually matter?  The game's the game.  Call it the 'Fred Edition' for that matter if you want.



Tell that to the stupid 'proper authorities' who said I can't name my child God$layer the Kurz7, which is of course spelled out in my native binary.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Mind of tempest said:


> what is a rave?


----------



## Kurotowa

Vaalingrade said:


> IT sounds like a name you get when your cult leader is just in it for the money.



Nah, we've got plenty of those out here in the Puget Sound area, and they've got a different naming scheme. Stuff like _Ramtha's School of Enlightenment_ or the _Moorish Science Temple of America_. They try to sound all official and serious and legitimate.


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​1 is always failure, not just attacks
20 always success, not just attacks


----------



## Mind of tempest

Justice and Rule said:


>



humorous but sadly does not answer my question?


----------



## Mistwell

The "crit only rolls weapon damage dice again" is a nerf to rogue sneak attack and paladin smiting for sure.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Vaalingrade said:


> Tell that to the stupid 'proper authorities' who said I can't name my child God$layer the Kurz7, which is of course spelled out in my native binary.



At least tell me you got that on your license plate?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

DarkCrisis said:


> Monsters don't crit?  As if D&D needed to be EVEN EASIER.
> 
> You can auto succeed an ability check with a nat 20?  So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?  Sure.  Why not.




You can houserule that if you want, but the regular version of the rules has the DM asking for rolls when the outcome is in doubt, and not otherwise (which would include when _failure_ is not in doubt).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> 6E, 5.5E, 5E+, 1D&D... does any of those terms actually matter?  The game's the game.  Call it the 'Fred Edition' for that matter if you want.



not really I have been saying 6e/5.5/anniversary edition for about a year... so it's nice to have 1D&D to say it easier... I am sure the community will decide if it is a new edition or not, not wotc


----------



## DEFCON 1

Mistwell said:


> The "crit only rolls weapon damage dice again" is a nerf to rogue sneak attack and paladin smiting for sure.



Which would probably been seen as a good nerf to the paladin, but a bad one to the rogue.


----------



## Yaarel

Races

I love the new rule for half-races. Pick one race for stats, but describe the character with two races in mind. Use a background to round out any mechanical needs.

The anthropomorphic human-animals, the humanimals, are less my thing. The ardling is less for me. At the same time, an easy way to accommodate the many different kinds of humanimal via a single race is a good idea for players who enjoy this archetype.


----------



## dave2008

Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​All playest docs (this and upcoming UA) work with your existing 5e books.

So not 6e?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Kurotowa said:


> Nah, we've got plenty of those out here in the Puget Sound area, and they've got a different naming scheme. Stuff like _Ramtha's School of Enlightenment_ or the _Moorish Science Temple of America_. They try to sound all official and serious and legitimate.



Be cause they care about the image instead of just the money


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> not really I have been saying 6e/5.5/anniversary edition for about a year... so it's nice to have 1D&D to say it easier... I am sure the community will decide if it is a new edition or not, not wotc



Heh heh... I'm not going to hold me breath waiting for the community to all come together and decide as a cohesive group whether this is considered a "new edition".


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mistwell said:


> The "crit only rolls weapon damage dice again" is a nerf to rogue sneak attack and paladin smiting for sure.



that is good so is the no critting with spells (nerf to eldritch blast)


----------



## dave2008

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which would probably been seen as a good nerf to the paladin, but a bad one to the rogue.



I bet they revise the rogue if this rule clarification is adopted (remember this is a playtest)


----------



## Thaumaturge

Mistwell said:


> The "crit only rolls weapon damage dice again" is a nerf to rogue sneak attack and paladin smiting for sure.



And I can imagine that fighters could get additional weapon dice as an ability at higher levels to give them more power. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Parmandur

Scribe said:


> How so?



Animal headed people qith magical wings.


----------



## Justice and Rule

dave2008 said:


> Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Critical Hits (experimental) - emphasized this is playtest and not set in stone
> 
> 20 gives inspiration




Okay, cool idea.



dave2008 said:


> 20 on attack is a crit, but only if you attack with a weapon or unarmed strike (nerf to spells)
> to differentiate spells and weapons / unarmed strikes





lol, kind of lame. I want spells to get nerfed, but this is the wrong way. If anything gets removed here, I expect this to because of the magic of the number "20".



dave2008 said:


> roll weapon or unarmed strike dice twice




I can't remember where I got it from, but players should just roll one set and get an additional damage bonus equal to the maximum roll of their weapon die. That way you don't get screwed by a naughty word roll and your Critical Hit comes off being lame. You'll always get more damage from it, even if is only one point more.

Also double the ability damage, too, because why not?



dave2008 said:


> only player characters score critical hits
> Recharge abilities are like a monster's crit, so monsters don't need them. The DM can control the tension, no accidental crits  leading to character death




This is not a bad idea at all if they end up making monsters way more mechanically interesting. When you don't have to worry about critical hits, you can make wilder stuff. Hopefully they use that space and run with it.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

TwoSix said:


> The fact that they're getting a strong spotlight on the official announcement makes me feel their exclusion is pretty unlikely.




 With Ardlings it's two birds, one stone, you get Aasimar and animalistic races in one. They basically split Aasimar into two races, more human looking Aasimar and more beastially Ardling.

 But for the love of the Gods, come up with a cooler name then Ardlings, it sounds too close to Lardlings.

 Hill Dwarves no longer have subraces (excluding Duergar), but Elves still have them with Drow, High, and Wild because they are far more then just mild appearance and cultural differences.

 So it appears there will be High Elves, Drow, Wild Elves, Orcs, Humans, Halflings,  Gnomes (or perhaps Rock Gnomes and Forest Gnomes), Dwarves and I assume Dragonborn (one race or Gem, Chromatic, and Metallic,?)

 Plus hybrid options.

 Background appears to be a mix of personal history, occuptation, and culture.

 They should rename any feat that appears in the 5e PHB to avoid confusion.

 No mention of the SRD, but if this stuff isn't added to the SRD, it risks splintering the fandom as third party publishers are stuck with 5e and unability to particapate in One D&D (which feels like a call out to the One Ring, as in One Edition to Bind them).

 Its was pretty b****y to blatantly rip off Pathfinder 2e's power source based spell lists. I also love that power source matters, although the bouncing back and forth between Primal being a power source and absorded into Divine Magic.

 It also feels closer abit to 4e.

 Just so much to chew on already.


----------



## Parmandur

Mind of tempest said:


> what is a rave?



Race typed with fat thumbs.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Mistwell said:


> The "crit only rolls weapon damage dice again" is a nerf to rogue sneak attack and paladin smiting for sure.




Oh s#!%, hadn't thought of that. That actually pulls back the nova damage of those classes quite a bit, especially Pallies.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh heh... I'm not going to hold me breath waiting for the community to all come together and decide as a cohesive group whether this is considered a "new edition".



i mean if you expect everyone on here to agree the sky is blue you wont get it... what I mean is when you go to Cons or Stores (and somewhat when talking on here or redit or tic tok) will you have to spell out what PHB you are useing?

I already see feats from 2014 book may not work


----------



## dave2008

Justice and Rule said:


> This is not a bad idea at all if they end up making monsters way more mechanically interesting. When you don't have to worry about critical hits, you can make wilder stuff. Hopefully they use that space and run with it.



That was definitely the implication.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Anyone else amused that the most obvious abbreviation for this would be OD&D?



I've been using 1DD.


----------



## Justice and Rule

dave2008 said:


> That was definitely the implication.




Now all they need to do is _execute._


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Henadic Theologian said:


> With Ardlings it's two birds, one stone, you get Aasimar and animalistic races in one. They basically split Aasimar into two races, more human looking Aasimar and more beastially Ardling.
> 
> * But for the love of the Gods, come up with a cooler name then Ardlings, it sounds too close to Lardlings.*



Celestial planetouched having easily mockable names is tradition.


----------



## Remathilis

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is good so is the no critting with spells (nerf to eldritch blast)



That might make the save vs cantrips more interesting rather than the step childs of FB, CT, EB, and RoF.


----------



## OB1

Count me as surprised that the changes being talked about here are OS changes (new crit rules, for example) and not just new ways to build characters and monsters based on the 2014 OS.  Maybe none of those actually make the final version or are presented as options, but if they are straight updates that means that a character you built with 2014 OS in mind will function differently in 2024 (and may have to be rebuilt).


----------



## dave2008

Justice and Rule said:


> Now all they need to do is _execute._



I'm fine if they don't. I prefer my monsters anyway


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Thaumaturge said:


> And I can imagine that fighters could get additional weapon dice as an ability at higher levels to give them more power.
> 
> Thaumaturge.



slayer and knight used to have a special ability that on a hit added +1 w that recharged per short rest... the slayer got to add BOTH str and dex to damage on attacks, and there basic attack scaled to 2w at 11th... I could see that coming back.

W was teh weapon damage, so a longsword 1w was 1d8 but a greatsword 1w was 2d6 and 2w was 2d8 and 4d6


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Vaalingrade said:


> I would love if they had a better name since for some reason NONE of them is an aardvark.




They can be an aardvark if you want them to!


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> Animal headed people qith magical wings.




 Animal Headed part celestial people, basically Aasimar for none Angels and less human looking Gods.

 Great for the Mulhorandi/Egyptian Gods.

 I'm more convinced then ever that an FR One D&D Campaign Book is coming in 2024 because someone has to fit all this new stuff into FR lore some how so it all makes sense. I have a feeling Ardlings will be primarily tied to Mulhorand. And This new twice on Tieflings will need a lore explanation.


----------



## DarkCrisis

dave2008 said:


> Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​Critical Hits (experimental) - emphasized this is playtest and not set in stone
> 
> 20 gives inspiration
> 20 on attack is a crit, but only if you attack with a weapon or unarmed strike (nerf to spells)
> to differentiate spells and weapons / unarmed strikes
> roll weapon or unarmed strike dice twice
> only player characters score critical hits
> Recharge abilities are like a monster's crit, so monsters don't need them. The DM can control the tension, no accidental crits  leading to character death



Accidentally Crit leading to a character death?  What is an accidental Crit?  And are your players aware that getting into monster fights can lead to death?


----------



## dave2008

OB1 said:


> Count me as surprised that the changes being talked about here are OS changes (new crit rules, for example) and not just new ways to build characters and monsters based on the 2014 OS.  Maybe none of those actually make the final version or are presented as options, but if they are straight updates that means that a character you built with 2014 OS in mind will function differently in 2024 (and may have to be rebuilt).



It seems from the two videos I have watched today that the primary thrust for backwards compatibility is to allow you to run all of the 2014-2023 adventures with the 2024 rule updates.  They are less concerned if a '14 class is 100% balanced with a '24 class, etc.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Mind of tempest said:


> what is a rave?



just the auto-correct of @Parmadur for race


----------



## Justice and Rule

dave2008 said:


> I'm fine if they don't. I prefer my monsters anyway




I have no doubts. Homebrew monsters are still the best because you can match them to your campaigns. Hopefully, though, they give us some good ideas to steal.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DarkCrisis said:


> Accidentally Crit leading to a character death?  What is an accidental Crit?  And are your players aware that getting into monster fights can lead to death?



I think it is because a crit can kill a 1st or 2nd level character in a very unintuitive way


----------



## Weiley31

I will admit that I think it's stupid that Monsters won't be able to do Critical Hits anymore.


----------



## DarkCrisis

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think it is because a crit can kill a 1st or 2nd level character in a very unintuitive way



Yes?  That’s not accidental.  If a PC crits a goblin and slays it outright is that an accident?


----------



## Weiley31

1 min left!


----------



## dave2008

DarkCrisis said:


> Accidentally Crit leading to a character death?  What is an accidental Crit?  And are your players aware that getting into monster fights can lead to death?



I'm just posting what he said or implied. His point was that monsters have "crit powers" like a dragon's breath that are controlled by the DM (with still some recharge variability for "fun"). So the DM can chose to kill the players instead of it happening accidentally when you roll a crit out in the open.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> I will admit that I think it's stupid that Monsters won't be able to do Critical Hits anymore.



I am going back and forth on this one


----------



## Weiley31

DarkCrisis said:


> Yes?  That’s not accidental.  If a PC crits a goblin and slays it outright is that an accident?



It is if Goblin Slayer did it.


----------



## Weiley31

It's up!!!


----------



## Justice and Rule

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am going back and forth on this one




It's weird, but it does open up a lot of design space. You can make higher-hitting regular attacks without having to worry about what happens when someone criticals you. Similarly you can make more wild powers that require attack rolls and not have to worry about a random "20" completely smoking a character in an unintended way.

Also it can cut down on players saying "You didn't crit me! Show me the roll!"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DarkCrisis said:


> Yes?  That’s not accidental.  If a PC crits a goblin and slays it outright is that an accident?



no it isn't an accident in game but out of game the DM has 0 intent to kill a character... the monster MEANT to kill the character.


----------



## dave2008

Weiley31 said:


> I will admit that I think it's stupid that Monsters won't be able to do Critical Hits anymore.



I will still use them because the function differently in our game, but it is not stupid. In reality crits on a 20 are bit silly. I prefer the PF2 approach to crits as it is related to skill not luck (though a bit less exciting at the table).


----------



## tetrasodium

The crit changes sound like a positive thing for magic casters* if* they come with associated changes to magic no longer expecting "what _*if*_ they crit when casting this spell" as if that was the norm.  Thinking of spells & nonspells as different discrete things rather than one as a subset of the other but only in a few ways is a mess


----------



## dave2008

Playtest PDF is live now.  21 pages


----------



## OB1

dave2008 said:


> It seems from the two videos I have watched today that the primary thrust for backwards compatibility is to allow you to run all of the 2014-2023 adventures with the 2024 rule updates.  They are less concerned if a '14 class is 100% balanced with a '24 class, etc.



Yep, that's how it appears.  Again, I'm surprised that they are shifting that much.  Wonder how compatible 2024+ adventures will be with the 2014 OS?  

Note I'm not saying this is a good/bad thing at this point, just surprised!


----------



## Weiley31

So far: I like to think of Ardlings as the 5E version of Archons, like the Hound, Bear, Owl and other celestial beast types.


----------



## overgeeked

DarkCrisis said:


> Accidentally Crit leading to a character death?  What is an accidental Crit?  And are your players aware that getting into monster fights can lead to death?



Right?


----------



## TwoSix

No more half-elves and half-orcs.  Feels weird.


----------



## tetrasodium

dave2008 said:


> I'm just posting what he said or implied. His point was that monsters have "crit powers" like a dragon's breath that are controlled by the DM (with still some recharge variability for "fun"). So the DM can chose to kill the players instead of it happening accidentally when you roll a crit out in the open.



I don't really agree with him about those roll a d6 & on  a 5-6 the monster recovers X being a crit analog.  If a big nasty monster goes down in one or two rounds facing a party of 5  each getting one or more crit chances each round it doesn't really matter & minion/mook type monsters pretty much never have roll a d6  gaining Y on a 5-6 type benefit


----------



## dave2008

Ability Score increases in the playtest:





So I guess everyone saying Tasha's was not optional was wrong?  I'm looking at you @Maxperson - I think.


----------



## Rikka66

DarkCrisis said:


> Accidentally Crit leading to a character death?  What is an accidental Crit?  And are your players aware that getting into monster fights can lead to death?



If I had to guess at the thinking of a person I've never met...

"Ok, if this hits it will likely take the Wizard to zero. These players are new, the enemies would have reason to capture them, so I'll have them just knock them out with no death saves involved, that won't be too punitive annnnd I crit and killed him."

That kind of scenario. I can get it. I don't like killing players. They have to really screw up in the face of information they knew for me to feel it was "deserved". But at the same time it is cutting out some spice from encounters. I'll be considering whether this is something I keep, unlike say, automatic success/fails from 20's/1's, which I know I won't use.


----------



## DarkCrisis

dave2008 said:


> I'm just posting what he said or implied. His point was that monsters have "crit powers" like a dragon's breath that are controlled by the DM (with still some recharge variability for "fun"). So the DM can chose to kill the players instead of it happening accidentally when you roll a crit out in the open.



 A DM never “accidentally” kills a player.  It’s either the will of the dice or he does it on purpose.


----------



## Justice and Rule

dave2008 said:


> I will still use them because the function differently in our game, but it is not stupid. In reality crits on a 20 are bit silly. I prefer the PF2 approach to crits as it is related to skill not luck (though a bit less exciting at the table).




Sure, but D&D has to be more bound by nostalgia. At the least, it feels like a smart move that could open up for interesting design.

They just need to release some actually good monster design rules and it'd be a huge step up!



tetrasodium said:


> The crit changes sound like a positive thing for magic casters* if* they come with associated changes to magic no longer expecting "what _*if*_ they crit when casting this spell" as if that was the norm.  Thinking of spells & nonspells as different discrete things rather than one as a subset of the other but only in a few ways is a mess




They really need to rework spells in general. PF2 had a good idea of lessening the power of magic, but generally getting a result on anything but a "critical success" (beating the save by 10+), even if it was a much smaller effect. It works quite nicely!

Hopefully we see some real reworking of magic. It would go a long way to improving the system.


----------



## Scribe

Henadic Theologian said:


> And This new twice on Tieflings will need a lore explanation.



"Remember how we hamfisted a massive change into Tieflings? Well you can forget that."

And the people rejoiced.


----------



## Weiley31

Oh look....Powerful Build still exists.........as is and completely ignoring the update that is _Hippo Strength._


----------



## Scribe

Parmandur said:


> Animal headed people qith magical wings.



Ah, I see.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Rikka66 said:


> If I had to guess at the thinking of a person I've never met...
> 
> "Ok, if this hits it will likely take the Wizard to zero. These players are new, the enemies would have reason to capture them, so I'll have them just knock them out with no death saves involved, that won't be too punitive annnnd I crit and killed him."
> 
> That kind of scenario. I can get it. I don't like killing players. They have to really screw up in the face of information they knew for me to feel it was "deserved". But at the same time it is cutting out some spice from encounters. I'll be considering whether this is something I keep, unlike say, automatic success/fails from 20's/1's, which I know I won't use.




Yeah, while some randomness is nice, just icing someone randomly as a DM becuase you rolled a 20 can just feel... not good? Sometimes it works, but I'd rather that be the result of something I did instead of just "will of the dice", so to speak. Designing monsters to hit hard and their rechargeables be their "criticals" would probably help make that feel better, and it allows you to strategize a bit around those situations: a monster is much more dangerous when they have their rechargeable, but you go in on them if they don't have it back up.

OMG, THEY COULD BRING BACK BLOODIED AND ALLOW MONSTERS TO GET A FREE RECHARGE OFF IT!


----------



## reelo

Justice and Rule said:


> Also it can cut down on players saying "You didn't crit me! Show me the roll!"




I consider it good practice for DMs to roll _all_ of their attack and damage rolls out in the open for everyone to see.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Love how they do the bullet points of each feats and conditions. Way easier for my players who have a harder time reading English.


----------



## Cadence

Answering some things about the autosuccess/failure.


----------



## Justice and Rule

reelo said:


> I consider it good practice for DMs to roll _all_ of their attack and damage rolls out in the open for everyone to see.




I'll be honest, I like to do it behind a screen, largely because I want to avoid monsters using my luck to mess up my players. And sometimes I like to hand my monsters a bad save because missing a spell can suck. But I have the most respect for DMs who roll it all out in the open.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I just skimmed... there is no short rest in the glossary, or in any mechanic.  The feats very much (except skilled and tough) changed so I don't see how it is backwards compatible when 2 feats with different effects are in the game?


----------



## Justice and Rule

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just skimmed... there is no short rest in the glossary, or in any mechanic.  The feats very much (except skilled and tough) changed so I don't see how it is backwards compatible when 2 feats with different effects are in the game?




Let's be real: the talk about "backwards compatability" is largely there to not freak out people who hate edition changes. Isn't this edition basically the longest-lived one without any sort of huge update? By the time this playtest ends, it'll be 9 or even 10 years old.


----------



## halfling rogue

DEFCON 1 said:


> 6E, 5.5E, 5E+, 1D&D... does any of those terms actually matter?  The game's the game.  Call it the 'Fred Edition' for that matter if you want.



I mean, in some sense, no it doesn't, though I'm sure from a business pov it absolutely matters. At this point it's no biggie, especially with the high compatibility, but at some point it's an integrity issue. The rules can't forever evolve with the expectation of eternal compatibility (even if that really were an achievable goal it's not likely a profitable one). And if they don't distinguish when there are truly distinguishable features then the fanbase will. 

I guess it seems a little disingenuous to me because I think from a business perspective an 'editionless' game is never profitable. I really feel the only reason they aren't branding this as something beyond 5e is because 5e is a cash cow and they don't want any rebranding to mess with the flow. And if that's the leading factor then it's not hard to visualize a future (that, face it, is already here) where you wind up having unofficial mini editions of One D&D (2014 PHB vs Tasha vs 2024, etc). I think of it a little like a movie studio saying from now on every Spiderman henceforth is Spiderman 5 and will be called One Spiderman. I'm like, wut.


----------



## ehren37

Aaaaand dragonborn still suck.


D10+level save for half isnt worth an action.


----------



## Weiley31

TwoSix said:


> No more half-elves and half-orcs.  Feels weird.



Thank Ao the game is still backward compatible with the older PHB.


----------



## Weiley31

ehren37 said:


> Aaaaand dragonborn still suck.



I do like how the Damage calculation also includes your level as well. So if the dice roll well, you did 30 Damage with one breath.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just skimmed... there is no short rest in the glossary, or in any mechanic.  The feats very much (except skilled and tough) changed so I don't see how it is backwards compatible when 2 feats with different effects are in the game?



A chunky errata, probably is in our future.


----------



## Weiley31

Also, Savage Attack allows ya to roll your damage twice and pick the better option.


----------



## rooneg

I'm generally pleased. The level of backwards compatibility they're showing here is pretty much what I was hoping for. They're clearly willing to make changes, but not so much that they'd prevent you from going back and running old adventures, which is the level of compatibility I wanted.

A few specific comments:

I wish they'd changed Race to Ancestry, basically every other similar game is doing so, and for good reason.

Not in love with Crits not working for Spell Attacks.

I will miss Half-Elf and Half-Orc as options with explicit rules. It seems weird that you can't make a version of Tanis Half-Elven that has darkvision but doesn't have magic, for example.

Ardling is a stupid name.

Making "build your own background" the default is brilliant and I love it.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: The terms _Arcane, Divine, and Primal_ are being used. Nice to see that 4E power source types are still being somewhat usedish.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ehren37 said:


> Aaaaand dragonborn still suck.
> 
> 
> D10+level save for half isnt worth an action.



It's an AoE, so yeah, it is.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Justice and Rule said:


> Yeah, while some randomness is nice, just icing someone randomly as a DM becuase you rolled a 20 can just feel... not good? Sometimes it works, but I'd rather that be the result of something I did instead of just "will of the dice", so to speak. Designing monsters to hit hard and their rechargeables be their "criticals" would probably help make that feel better, and it allows you to strategize a bit around those situations: a monster is much more dangerous when they have their rechargeable, but you go in on them if they don't have it back up.
> 
> OMG, THEY COULD BRING BACK BLOODIED AND ALLOW MONSTERS TO GET A FREE RECHARGE OFF IT!



Which again, isn’t an “accident”.  It’s the DM preventing character death/consequences.  Which is fine. Some people want to tell a story over a game with stakes and threats and that’s absolutely valid.  No wrong way to play.  But there is no such thing as an accidental death of a player.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> No more half-elves and half-orcs.  Feels weird.



Half everything!


----------



## MockingBird

D20 test? Can someone explain what I'm missing, or sure it's obvious.

I figured inspiration just went away, always forget about it.

Are feats not considered optional? I assume if I want to ignore feats I just make a character from my 2014 PHB?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yup. They are going place with this. I can say its a good start. Not perfect, but a step in the good direction.


----------



## plisnithus8

It seems like dragonborn should have gem and other new dragon types.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> A chunky errata, probably is in our future.



how is errata any diffrent in this context form NOT back compatable?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Also: The terms _Arcane, Divine, and Primal_ are being used. Nice to see that 4E power source types are still being somewhat usedish.



now if only martials get some love


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

While I agree with the end-goal of enabling more mixed race options without having to create a new, unique racial statblock for every possible permutation, I am curious how the removal of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs will be represented with the Dragonmarked versions in Eberron...


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

MockingBird said:


> D20 test? Can someone explain what I'm missing, or sure it's obvious.
> 
> I figured inspiration just went away, always forget about it.
> 
> Are feats not considered optional? I assume if I want to ignore feats I just make a character from my 2014 PHB?



They are part of the backgrounds now, but I would not feel bad about just removing them if you do not play with feats.


----------



## overgeeked

Yeah, moving ASI to backgrounds seems like a big bit of tradition to kill. Floating ASI is one thing, having it based on background instead of race seems...almost un-D&D like. 

Savage Attacker. I was wondering how long it would take them to apply advantage to more than just d20 rolls. Wonder why they don't just call it advantage. Weird. 

Tavern Brawler. Monks have a few good reasons to take this now. 

Long Rests. Good to see some sanity has returned. They finally made it explicit that combat interrupts a rest, not the ridiculous one hour of combat reading. 

Short Rests...despite the phrase appearing a few times in the document, it's not actually defined here.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just skimmed... there is no short rest in the glossary, or in any mechanic.



The glossary is only for:





Did any of the things quoted in it so far previously have a short rest?
(I'm not a huge fan of short rest recharge abilities... but I agree that would be a big change if they did them in).


----------



## ehren37

Sacrosanct said:


> It's an AoE, so yeah, it is.



Disagree. We've been playing it as a bonus action for years now, and it still sucks. You rarely catch 2+ creatures, and frequently your allies and other important stuff are in the way. 

Then again, some people thought giving up your action to have your wolf bite someone was good action economy and we all know how well that played out.


----------



## Weiley31

plisnithus8 said:


> It seems like dragonborn should have gem and other new dragon types.



I have to admit I was shocked not to see the Gem Dragonborn breath types. But this is PHB races, so I guess it somewhat makes sense to start there and not overload everybody.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> how is errata any diffrent in this context form NOT back compatable?



Adventures, core mechanics, will still run under the same systems and constraints?

To be clear, it's all preemptive PR speak, it won't be fully the same, as they are clearly changing things.

But they will skate by on a technicality.


----------



## rooneg

overgeeked said:


> Yeah, moving ASI to backgrounds seems like a big bit of tradition to kill. Floating ASI is one thing, having it based on background instead of race seems...almost un-D&D like.



It's only specific ASIs for a given background if you aren't building your own. Build your own is the default though, so you can always build "Exactly like Guard, but with different stats" if you want.


----------



## Vaalingrade

DarkCrisis said:


> A DM never “accidentally” kills a player.  It’s either the will of the dice or he does it on purpose.



Following the will of the dice when it doesn't benefit the game is at least a mistake, if not an accident.


----------



## Cadence

MockingBird said:


> D20 test? Can someone explain what I'm missing, or sure it's obvious.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MockingBird said:


> D20 test? Can someone explain what I'm missing, or sure it's obvious.



attack, save, ability check or skill check


----------



## Aldarc

Now that all backgrounds permit choosing your own skills, does this mean even more super saturation of Perception?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

plisnithus8 said:


> It seems like dragonborn should have gem and other new dragon types.



that and I wonder why it doesn't have the 'as an attack if you have multi attacks' rider


----------



## billd91

dave2008 said:


> Ability Score increases in the playtest:
> View attachment 258259



I'm reasonably OK with linking bonuses to background. My favorite idea would be +1 from race, +1 from class, +1 from background, but this is better than just willy-nilly putting them wherever you think they'll give you the most benefit.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Cadence said:


> The glossary is only for:
> View attachment 258265
> 
> Did any of the things quoted in it so far previously have a short rest?
> (I'm not a huge fan of short rest recharge abilities... but I agree that would be a big change if they did them in).




The Musician Feat's Inspiring Song feature recharges on a short or long rest. 

Short rests are still in the game


----------



## OB1

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just skimmed... there is no short rest in the glossary, or in any mechanic.  The feats very much (except skilled and tough) changed so I don't see how it is backwards compatible when 2 feats with different effects are in the game?



It's mentioned in the long rest section that if you don't complete the long rest but got at least 1 hour in before the interruption, you benefit from a short rest.

Also, thank god, they clarified that combat during a long rest means you have to start the rest over.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> now if only martials get some love



Well, until we get the class UA (and we all know it's coming), we have Dragonlance/Knight of Solamnia/Build your Background to compensate for that for the time.


----------



## Weiley31

The Myopic Sniper said:


> The Musician Feat's Inspiring Song feature recharges on a short or long rest.
> 
> Short rests are still in the game



Be interesting to see if the Warlock changes any or any Short rest based classes.


----------



## Cadence

billd91 said:


> I'm reasonably OK with linking bonuses to background. My favorite idea would be +1 from race, +1 from class, +1 from background, but this is better than just willy-nilly putting them wherever you think they'll give you the most benefit.



But since you can do a custom background, I'm guessing it will effectively still be willy-nilly.

At this point, having them just be part of the ability score generation process seems easiest to me. (Here, use an array, points, or roll.. then put a +1 and +2 in two different spots).


----------



## Justice and Rule

DarkCrisis said:


> Which again, isn’t an “accident”.  It’s the DM preventing character death/consequences.  Which is fine. Some people want to tell a story over a game with stakes and threats and that’s absolutely valid.  No wrong way to play.  But there is no such thing as an accidental death of a player.




Oh don't mistake me for saying you're having badwrongfun with your playstyle. For me I don't like it because of the randomness. I play Pathfinder 2, where higher-level monsters crit the hell out of players! I just think the randomness of how it is implemented is somewhat problematic in this case. Just my opinion, not at all saying you are wrong.


----------



## overgeeked

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Love how they do the bullet points of each feats and conditions. Way easier for my players who have a harder time reading English.



Almost like they're writing the rules to a game.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Also I know I will be, but I recommend people hold on to the PDFs for historical purposes. Given how much can just disappear off the internet, it'd be nice to have an archive of this stuff for the future.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

overgeeked said:


> Almost like they're writing the rules to a game.



Yep. Its not too word-y, but its not dry/dull either. I think its a nice, balanced way of informing while being fun.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Well, until we get the class UA (and we all know it's coming), we have Dragonlance/Knight of Solamnia/Build your Background to compensate for that for the time.



of the 7 (6+me) players active in my group text 3 are mad, 2 are hopeful, and me and another are not sure but suspicious... I still fear this will change enough to force it into being an edition break (even if they claim it isn't) but pay lip service to back compatibility enough to not change everything that needs changing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Be interesting to see if the Warlock changes any or any Short rest based classes.



how they interact with 'arcane spell list' already has some qustions... I hope the no eldritch blast being a cantrip means it is a class feature again


----------



## Nadan

Well, looks like they still want people to buy Fizban even after 2024. Cause the default dragonborn is back to the awful range.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

(never mind)


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> of the 7 (6+me) players active in my group text 3 are mad, 2 are hopeful, and me and another are not sure but suspicious... I still fear this will change enough to force it into being an edition break (even if they claim it isn't) but pay lip service to back compatibility enough to not change everything that needs changing.




Having played in a game where some used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D for their characters... I wonder if the biggest determinant of whether a half edition is a break might be whether players who want the old stick to just using it instead of trying to cross-book min-max, and how angry everything makes the DM.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

GMforPowergamers said:


> that and I wonder why it doesn't have the 'as an attack if you have multi attacks' rider



My bet: its only because we do not have access to the class features as-of-now. It'll probably be added when the multi-attacking classes are presented. 

But I'd still mention it in the comment, just to be sure.


----------



## Justice and Rule

GMforPowergamers said:


> how they interact with 'arcane spell list' already has some qustions... I hope the no eldritch blast being a cantrip means it is a class feature again




It'd be nice if they roll some of the near-auto choices into just being class features. _Eldritch Blast _is a good example of a cantrip, though skills would be another smart idea: Rangers should automatically get Survival and Nature, Druids should get Nature, Wizards get Arcana, Clerics get Religion, etc.


----------



## TwoSix

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> While I agree with the end-goal of enabling more mixed race options without having to create a new, unique racial statblock for every possible permutation, I am curious how the removal of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs will be represented with the Dragonmarked versions in Eberron...



Maybe they'll somebody go back and do a new version, but there's no particular reason you can't use the Eberron Dragonmarked races with 2024 material.


----------



## OB1

After reading them and thinking thru them for a hot minute, the new crit rules are really starting to grow on me.  I'm assuming that both monsters and classes (rogue sneak attack, for example) will have rules exceptions for what happens on a crit, Opens up a TON of design space.

Now to go back and read thru the new classes and feats.  Feeling pretty optimistic about OD&D right now


----------



## Cadence

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I notice short rest is suspiciously missing from the glossary of terms. :-o




The glossary is only of things that changed...  (and apparently short rest occurs in the document elsewhere, see upthread).


----------



## MockingBird

Cadence said:


> View attachment 258268



So just a rename for standard ability checks?


----------



## Vaalingrade

overgeeked said:


> Almost like they're writing the rules to a game.



It's just that seeing clearly worded rules is so... novel now.


----------



## Nightfly

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I notice short rest is suspiciously missing from the glossary of terms. :-o




Yes, but the definition of "Long Rest" actually mentions "Short Rest". So it's still there. 

Short rests really need to be changed. Here's hoping.


----------



## Maialideth

The whole thing about monsters don't crit is going to suck for Grave clerics....


----------



## Weiley31

Fun Fact: Iron Kingdom: Requiem beat them do the whole "Background gives a stat boost" that they are doing with these backgrounds.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> Having played in a game where some used OD&D, some B/X, and some AD&D for their characters... I wonder if the biggest determinant of whether a half edition is a break might be whether players who want the old stick to just using it instead of trying to cross-book min-max, and how angry everything makes the DM.



100% I think that is it...   3e died to 3.5 because few if any tables used both, 4e and essentials worked because few if any tables drew a line 'this or that'


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> 4e and essentials worked because few if any tables drew a line 'this or that'



This was not my experience. I was banished from good fighters the second Essentials dropped.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Vaalingrade said:


> Following the will of the dice when it doesn't benefit the game is at least a mistake, if not an accident.



Depends on how you define “benefit”.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> Maybe they'll somebody go back and do a new version, but there's no particular reason you can't use the Eberron Dragonmarked races with 2024 material.



correct me if I am wrong (I am not near books and that one is put away not being used right now anyway) were those not subraces?  if they do away with subraces how will that work? (I may be 100% off on this one)


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I notice short rest is suspiciously missing from the glossary of terms. :-o




But as already said: it is still there. If you interrupt a long rest, it counts as a short one.

Overall I like what we see. Quite some updates, but nothing that makes DM content useless.
I like the new backgrounds but think they should not give all of the stat bonuses. I think I would only have one +1 modifier to stats from bavkground and leave the other +1 modifiers to assign as you like (without going the extra step of creating a custom copy of backgrounds with different stat modifications).
I also like the new inspiration mechanic and the human race, but I also think giving inspiration after rolling a 1 would be nicer. I don't particularly like half race rules. I think I'd like a sidebar, that says: in dialogue with your DM you can swap features from one parent's race with your other parent's one. As an example I would like to see the half elf with darkvision and versatile trait and elven resitances.


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> how they interact with 'arcane spell list' already has some qustions... I hope the no eldritch blast being a cantrip means it is a class feature again



Eldritch blast isn't part of the SRD, so that may be why it's missing from the playtest.

I'm more curious to see what they do with booming blade and greenflame blade.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> correct me if I am wrong (I am not near books and that one is put away not being used right now anyway) were those not subraces?  if they do away with subraces how will that work? (I may be 100% off on this one)




Probably you just use the 2014 races. I think, with the new rules, we will see backgrounds for dragonmaks instead of subraces which were a neat idea, but rather a fix for the limited design space.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Justice and Rule said:


> Oh don't mistake me for saying you're having badwrongfun with your playstyle. For me I don't like it because of the randomness. I play Pathfinder 2, where higher-level monsters crit the hell out of players! I just think the randomness of how it is implemented is somewhat problematic in this case. Just my opinion, not at all saying you are wrong.




Oh no your absolutely fine.  I don’t believe in tilting the scale for my players unless it will cause a TPK.  If you run afoul of a goblin and it lops your head off, well.. no one said adventuring was a safe profession.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> This was not my experience. I was banished from good fighters the second Essentials dropped.



(Unless you were the player at Origins that year) you are the 2nd person I have heard say this or something akin to that... so I didn't say NO TABLES....


----------



## King Babar

Happy to see that neither Great Weapon Master nor Sharpshooter are in the 1st-level Feat list. That should help encourage variety.

I feel like Lucky is a strong pick for Humans though. Having essentially 3 points of Inspiration feels strong.


----------



## Scribe

Weiley31 said:


> Fun Fact: Iron Kingdom: Requiem beat them do the whole "Background gives a stat boost" that they are doing with these backgrounds.



@AcererakTriple6 and I discussed background as providing (part of) the initial ASI years ago it seems.


----------



## Cadence

MockingBird said:


> So just a rename for standard ability checks?



Any of ability check, attack roll, or saving throw (so almost anything using a d20 to judge success).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> Probably you just use the 2014 races. I think, with the new rules, we will see backgrounds for dragonmaks instead of subraces which were a neat idea, but rather a fix for the limited design space.



yeah more and more I am qustioning if this really is just updates


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> correct me if I am wrong (I am not near books and that one is put away not being used right now anyway) were those not subraces?  if they do away with subraces how will that work? (I may be 100% off on this one)



Some of them were subraces, some of them were standalone races (like all the human ones).


----------



## King Babar

Crafter: 
*Discount.* Whenever you buy a nonmagical item, you receive a 20 percent discount on it.
*Faster Crafting.* When you craft an item using a tool with which you have Tool Proficiency, the required crafting time is reduced by 20 percent.

I sleep.


----------



## Kurotowa

Yaarel said:


> Races
> 
> I love the new rule for half-races. Pick one race for stats, but describe the character with two races in mind. Use a background to round out any mechanical needs.
> 
> The anthropomorphic human-animals, the humanimals, are less my thing. The ardling is less for me. At the same time, an easy way to accommodate the many different kinds of humanimal via a single race is a good idea for players who enjoy this archetype.



And really, those two elements kind of fix each other. Do you want your more anime style "animal ears and maybe a tail" instead of a full anthro animal head? Create a half-ardling with a curated selection of animal traits and ditch the rest. They don't even have to use ardling stats!

Moving on to the feats, I do appreciate a lot of the changes to old feats. Lucky got nerfed, Savage Attacker got buffed, and Magic Initiate is a lot easier to use for kitbashing gish builds around Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, and Shillelagh.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

King Babar said:


> Crafter:
> *Discount.* Whenever you buy a nonmagical item, you receive a 20 percent discount on it.
> *Faster Crafting.* When you craft an item using a tool with which you have Tool Proficiency, the required crafting time is reduced by 20 percent.
> 
> I sleep.



wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?


----------



## This Effin’ GM

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?



12!


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> (Unless you were the player at Origins that year) you are the 2nd person I have heard say this or something akin to that... so I didn't say NO TABLES....



There's a non-zero chance I was the player. I've been at Origins all in-person years since 2017


----------



## King Babar

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?



WotC wants to remind you that silver and copper coins do in fact exist.


----------



## Weiley31

Also, if I'm reading right, it would seem like Variant Human has been folded into the Playtest Human. (that's a weird statement to say.)


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math.



Playtesters are going to ANNIHILATE that.


----------



## Weiley31

I do like how the Dwarf has Tremor sense. Something about it seems cinematic or something that like would happen in a Lord of the Rings style movie.


----------



## Ixal

As feared nothing means anything anymore. Random racial combinations with no effect and all races being physically and mentally exactly the same.


----------



## Remathilis

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?



Good thing we all have miniature computers in our pockets...


----------



## overgeeked

King Babar said:


> Happy to see that neither Great Weapon Master nor Sharpshooter are in the 1st-level Feat list. That should help encourage variety.
> 
> I feel like Lucky is a strong pick for Humans though. Having essentially 3 points of Inspiration feels strong.



Yeah, still banning that. Weird that it's inspiration but they insist on it being it's own thing. Just lift the inspiration cap and rework Lucky to give you prof bonus inspiration at the start of each long rest. Then do the logical thing and let players decide to spend inspiration after rolling. Boom. Done.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: Lucky got buffed in that now you can potentially have _6(!)_ of them once you Prof Score gets that high.


----------



## Nikosandros

ehren37 said:


> Aaaaand dragonborn still suck.
> 
> 
> D10+level save for half isnt worth an action.



Yes, a disappointing step back from Fizaban.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

This Effin’ GM said:


> 12!



DAMMIT. It’s 3.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?



10% x 2. 15gp. 10% is 1.5. x2 is 3. It costs 12gp.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The name 'Ardling' doesn't really bother me, because it's about time the Guardinals got re-introduced into the game.  They're the one Great Wheel extraplanar alignment-based creature that's never really been highlighted since like 2E.  All the other ones have shown up in the game much more often:

Chaotic Good - Fey
Chaotic Neutral - Slaad
Chaotic Evil - Demons
Neutral Evil - Yugoloths
Lawful Evil - Devils
Lawful Neutral - Modrons
Lawful Good - Angels (or Archons)
Neutral Good - Guardinals

So the fact they are now highlighting the Guardinals by giving them a descendant race for PCs to me is a cool thing.  And as far as the name is concerned, I suppose they could have been called 'Ardinals' or 'Guardlings' or something... but 'Ardling' as a descendant of Guardinals works okay too in my opinion.

I also wonder if this new race is being introduced because as they've now obviously been working on Planescape they realized that Guardinals have gotten short shrift these past several editions and they wanted to rectify that.  And while they could have put Ardlings into the Planescape setting book... maybe they thought it would be better to just have it be in the PHB as an opposite number to the Tiefling.


----------



## Nikosandros

overgeeked said:


> One thing I was surprised about is Crawford saying they wanted players to spend inspiration more freely, but that they were keeping the binary state of having or not having inspiration. If you want players to spend inspiration, you can't only give it to them more often, you have to give them more instances of it. I've seen this in playing Fate and in 5E when I raised the limit of inspiration PCs could have. Once they knew they could have several at a time, poof, they stopped treating them like they were precious and started actually using them.



Inspiration should be changed to the way many tables use it: instead of advantage it should grant a re-roll.


----------



## Remathilis

Ixal said:


> As feared nothing means anything anymore. Random racial combinations with no effect and all races being physically and mentally exactly the same.



It's weird; getting hit with a 6 foot blade if metal hurts the same as a bolt of fire to the face, and a guy wearing scale mail has the same chance of being hit as a nimble guy in leather or a tough dude in a loincloth..


----------



## TwoSix

DEFCON 1 said:


> I also wonder if this new race is being introduced because as they've now obviously been working on Planescape they realized that Guardinals have gotten short shrift these past several editions and they wanted to rectify that.  And while they could have put Ardlings into the Planescape setting book... maybe they thought it would be better to just have it be in the PHB as an opposite number to the Tiefling.



My guess is that a lot of the recent animalistic races introduced have tested well and they wanted a nice catch-all way to put animalistic races into the PHB without having to do different entries for all of them.


----------



## Scribe

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, a disappointing step back from Fizaban.



It's wild they wouldn't just reprint Fizbans.


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> Inspiration should be changed to the way many tables use it: instead of advantage it should grant a re-roll.



Right. The only difference is having to declare before you roll or after. I think we've always used it after, so as a re-roll, rather than a possibly wasted resource.


----------



## darjr

I think the bits they are going to double down in for races are the physical inherited things like tremor sense and not the cultural things like “good at mining”


----------



## Nightfly

Math teacher here. To find 20% of a number, move the decimal one place to the left (in other words, find 10%) and then double it.

What's 20% of 450? 45.0 doubled, which is 90. Easy peasy. Great trick for figuring out the tip!


----------



## TwoSix

Weiley31 said:


> Also, if I'm reading right, it would seem like Variant Human has been folded into the Playtest Human. (that's a weird statement to say.)



Humans have definitely gotten a big nerf, as the 1st level feats now selectable aren't nearly as good as most of the popular 1st level feats.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ixal said:


> As feared nothing means anything anymore. Random racial combinations with no effect and all races being physically and mentally exactly the same.



I know, right?  Not like the good old days of 2014 when your party could have a Goliath with a 15 STR and a Halfling also with a 15 STR.  Thank goodness the rules made sure to really differentiate those body types!


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Right. The only difference is having to declare before you roll or after. I think we've always used it after, so as a re-roll, rather than a possibly wasted resource.



Yea. I think this is the biggest thing about it’s non use. However I want to see if it gets used more the old way if players can directly generate it.


----------



## Ixal

Remathilis said:


> It's weird; getting hit with a 6 foot blade if metal hurts the same as a bolt of fire to the face, and a guy wearing scale mail has the same chance of being hit as a nimble guy in leather or a tough dude in a loincloth..



Unless you are weak or resistant to fire or its a touch or flat footed attack, ect. (if those concepts have not been deemed too complicated...)

But now you can be a dwarf with the "abilities" of an orc and the special ability of an elf. How are you a dwarf again?


----------



## Cadence

DEFCON 1 said:


> The name 'Ardling' doesn't really bother me, because it's about time the Guardinals got re-introduced into the game.  They're the one Great Wheel extraplanar alignment-based creature that's never really been highlighted since like 2E.  All the other ones have shown up in the game much more often:



I was kind of wondering if it was because of how the aas in aasimar was being pronounced...


----------



## cbwjm

I'm glad they're going the way of pathfinder with spell lists organised by type target than class.


----------



## Teemu

Apparently classes will still have class spell lists, the new categories are for feats and races. Mentioned in the accompanying video by Crawford.


----------



## Kurotowa

Weiley31 said:


> Also: Lucky got buffed in that now you can potentially have _6(!)_ of them once you Prof Score gets that high.



It's still a net nerf with how it can no longer stack with Advantage or invert Disadvantage into Mega-Advantage. That was the really atrocious part.


----------



## overgeeked

Cadence said:


> I was kind of wondering if it was because of how the aas in aasimar was being pronounced...



Don't worry. It took us about 10 seconds to mispronounce the "ardling" as "nardling" and start making "Wolfman's got nards" jokes.


----------



## Justice and Rule

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow a feat that makes you do math... this long sword cost 15gp what is 20% of 15?




Finally we have a use for silvers and coppers!

More realistically... are they *finally* going to make up some rules for crafting, given this feat?



Weiley31 said:


> Also, if I'm reading right, it would seem like Variant Human has been folded into the Playtest Human. (that's a weird statement to say.)




Variant Human looking back at the 5E Base Human:


----------



## MonsterEnvy

ehren37 said:


> Aaaaand dragonborn still suck.
> 
> 
> D10+level save for half isnt worth an action.



Tell them to change it to be more like the Fizban Dragonborn on the 1st is what I recommend.


----------



## Weiley31

Justice and Rule said:


> More realistically... are they *finally* going to make up some rules for crafting, given this feat?



Nothing worthwhile I expect. It still feels like they are just gonna have the "DMs" do those details. I guess we'll see.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Celestial planetouched having easily mockable names is tradition.



It's pronounced closer to Awesomer, and not Ass-i-mar.


----------



## Steampunkette

I like some of the changes, of course...

But I'd still like to see just a -tiny- bit more done to the spell lists:

Arcane, Divine, *Occult, *Primal

Split out the "Dark and Questionable" magic to be it's own thing, rather than giving Wizards and Sorcerers the Warlock's unique and interesting spells.


----------



## plisnithus8

Remathilis said:


> Good thing we all have miniature computers in our pockets...



Seems like advantage.bonus to persuasion to negotiate rather than flat 20% off would help fit lore better.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Ardlings seem very weird for a PHB race. In a Planescape or otherwise planar campaign sure, but as a standard race in the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance, etc., alongside humans, dwarves, and elves?

My preference is to tell my players that any PHB race is fine for any of my campaigns, but this I think is one that I would reserve for more unusual campaigns.


----------



## King Babar

Someone could do the math on this because I'm too tired, but I think the Arcane list is a bit big and could probably be split into a fourth spell list, similar to P2E's Occult.


----------



## Nikosandros

overgeeked said:


> Right. The only difference is having to declare before you roll or after. I think we've always used it after, so as a re-roll, rather than a possibly wasted resource.



Especially considering that the playtest Lucky feat allows the choice after the roll.


----------



## Ancalagon

I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.

There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat. 

Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting. 

so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.

edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?


----------



## Weiley31

Kobold Avenger said:


> t's pronounced closer to Awesomer, and not Ass-i-mar.



I've totally missed that memo since the day they came to be.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Weiley31 said:


> Nothing worthwhile I expect. It still feels like they are just gonna have the "DMs" do those details. I guess we'll see.




This recently came up in the Eberron game I'm in. There's an artificer in the group and there is just no guidance on it. I really, _really_ hope they surprise me here.


----------



## Weiley31

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



Thank goodness Tasha's has your back on that.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My suggestion is to add the option to can create "machinimas", at least for streamers in their actual-play shows. And later the "virtual miniatures" to can become virtual avatars.


----------



## Cadence

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.




Custom backgrounds* are a default option though, right?

* Including modifying a given background.


----------



## Nikosandros

Kurotowa said:


> It's still a net nerf with how it can no longer stack with Advantage or invert Disadvantage into Mega-Advantage. That was the really atrocious part.



I know that the mega-advantage was the official, Crawford-approved ruling, but I always found it weird and ignored it.


----------



## Ixal

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



Thats because so many people complained that they are forced the play specific races as they refused to play anything without an 18 main stat. It was inconceivable to them to not play something with the optimal stat array.
All ASI discussions boiled down to that.


----------



## overgeeked

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



Or...with "build your own background" as the default, they've eliminated the problem entirely. You can be a criminal with a WIS bonus...you just have to write a few lines of fiction to justify it.


----------



## TwoSix

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



Being able to modify any and all parts of the pre-built backgrounds is an explicitly listed option.  The pre-built backgrounds have as much mechanical weight as the "quick build" options in the beginning of the class descriptions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> Good thing we all have miniature computers in our pockets...



I know this is aside... but my nephew is a teen and a few years ago he came home from school and told me his teacher said "You just need to understand the why not memorize tables, it's not like you aren't going to have a computer with you at all times" and I thought the kid was lying... so I checked, the teacher of 7th grade math confirmed that...


----------



## Weiley31

Justice and Rule said:


> This recently came up in the Eberron game I'm in. There's an artificer in the group and there is just no guidance on it. I really, _really_ hope they surprise me here.



Closest thing I could say is see if Vault 5E from Cubicle 7 expands the Adventures in Middle-Earth 5E crafting system or Ruins of Symbaroum. And that I haven't seen fully in depth yet as artifact rules are in the game master guide. (but it does have a Blacksmith fighter subclass in the players guide so something I guess.)


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> I know that the mega-advantage was the official, Crawford-approved ruling, but I always found it weird and ignored it.



So many of his rulings are whack-a-do. Like the one hour of combat to break a long rest thing.


----------



## Yaarel

Ixal said:


> Thats because so many people complained that they are forced the play specific races as they refused to play anything without an 18 main stat. It was inconceivable to them to not play something with the optimal stat array.
> All ASI discussions boiled down to that.



The high ability score can be for flavor as well as mechanics, but yeah, it does boil down to inconceivable to not match the character concept.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's pronounced closer to Awesomer, and not Ass-i-mar.



Just saying, it's REALLY easy to accidentally spell aasimar with the double 's' even when not meaning to...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> I think the bits they are going to double down in for races are the physical inherited things like tremor sense and not the cultural things like “good at mining”



yet they kept prof in smiths tools...


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Weiley31 said:


> I've totally missed that memo since the day they came to be.



There's those audio files out there somewhere, where I think it was Monte Cook actually pronouncing various things from Planescape.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

TwoSix said:


> No more half-elves and half-orcs.  Feels weird.




 They are in there, sort of, it's just that they have been entirely reduced to fluff except life-span (which itself is borderline fluff). And you can mix any two races, although besides life-span, only one parent race provides your mechanics, the second one is just fluff and lifespan.

"CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT HUMANOID KINDS Thanks to the magical workings of the multiverse, Humanoids of different kinds sometimes have children together. For example, folk who have a human parent and an orc or an elf parent are particularly common. Many other combinations are possible. If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous pairing, choose two Race options that are Humanoid to represent your parents. Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits. You can then mix and match visual characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of the two options. For example, if your character has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might choose Halfling for your game traits and then decide that your character has the pointed ears that are characteristic of a gnome. Finally, determine the average of the two options’ Life Span traits to figure out how long your character might live. For example, a child of a halfling and a gnome has an average life span of 288 years.""


----------



## Weiley31

Kobold Avenger said:


> There's those audio files out there somewhere, where I think it was Monte Cook actually pronouncing various things from Planescape.



I'll still take my Buttimars anyday of the week still.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

THEMNGMNT said:


> I've houseruled that Inspiration is awarded on a roll of 1. I took that idea from Cortex, where a failure can boost your chance of future success.




They probably didn't go for that only because, even though it's a nice consolation prize for failure, it seems weird to be _inspired_ by failure. People tend to be inspired by success more often. You're version is nice, but it's more "gamey". Of course, you should feel free to swap it from 20's to 1's if you so desire. They should put that in the DMG as an option, just to spell it out.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



I agree that this is just moving the perceived problem, but at least these are just sample backgrounds. You could always swap out a different stat increase. So you can be a Criminal but put the +2 in Wisdom and be a cleric. (If you insist on mechanically optimizing your ability scores for your class.)


----------



## Nikosandros

overgeeked said:


> So many of his rulings are whack-a-do. Like the one hour of combat thing.



... or the magical shields ruling. That was really weird, I wonder what was the reasoning behind it.


----------



## Sir Brennen

darjr said:


> I think the bits they are going to double down in for races are the physical inherited things like tremor sense and not the cultural things like “good at mining”



But I'd say the Forge Wise is in the same category as "good at mining". It's a cultural thing, despite the fluff text trying to make it a lineage trait.


----------



## Aldarc

Steampunkette said:


> I like some of the changes, of course...
> 
> But I'd still like to see just a -tiny- bit more done to the spell lists:
> 
> Arcane, Divine, *Occult, *Primal
> 
> Split out the "Dark and Questionable" magic to be it's own thing, rather than giving Wizards and Sorcerers the Warlock's unique and interesting spells.



PF2 has Occult also for what's essentially the more "psionics" spells too.


----------



## Yaarel

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Just saying, it's REALLY easy to accidentally spell aasimar with the double 's' even when not meaning to...



Seriously, they need to spell the name of the creature:

awsimar


----------



## OB1

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?



The default now is to create your own background with whatever stat bump, feat, 2 skills, tool and language you want.


----------



## Weiley31

Well so far, I like the Dwarves. I wouldn't mind just jacking _Forge Wise_ and the Tremor Sense of the _Stonecunning_ and just add them onto the current Dwarf. Done.


----------



## TwoSix

Henadic Theologian said:


> They are in there, sort of, it's just that they have been entirely reduced to fluff except life-span (which itself is borderline fluff). And you can mix any two races, although besides life-span, only one parent race provides your mechanics, the second one is just fluff and lifespan.



Oh I know, it's just that half-elves, especially, were always kind of defined by having their own mechanical niche, going back to have special MC options back in 1e.  Then they got fun stuff like Paragon Surge in PF1, and Versatile Master in 4e.  Having them now just be a reskin option feels odd.  

I'm not complaining, just a different approach to get used to.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

overgeeked said:


> 10% x 2. 15gp. 10% is 1.5. x2 is 3. It costs 12gp.



20% = 1/5
15/5 = 3


----------



## overgeeked

Nikosandros said:


> ... or the magical shields ruling. That was really weird, I wonder what was the reasoning behind it.



I bet it's intentional. He makes the wildest rulings he can think of to force referees to ignore him and make up their own minds.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Teemu said:


> Apparently classes will still have class spell lists, the new categories are for feats and races. Mentioned in the accompanying video by Crawford.



I understand it as clerics and paladins (for example) both use the Divine spell list, but each class may have additional spells specific to them.

So Eldritch Blast might still be a Warlock cantrip only AND can't be taken by anyone else using the Magic Initiate feat, which is limited to the Big Three primary spell lists.


----------



## Weiley31

Poor Wood Elf and Drow don't get a teleport.


----------



## Aldarc

TwoSix said:


> Oh I know, it's just that half-elves, especially, were always kind of defined by having their own mechanical niche, going back to have special MC options back in 1e.  Then they got fun stuff like Paragon Surge in PF1, and Versatile Master in 4e.  Having them now just be a reskin option feels odd.
> 
> I'm not complaining, just a different approach to get used to.



Eberron even says that they are their own true-breeding race in their own right.

But I guess this does move them a bit closer to Tolkien half-elves where they may have to choose between which lineage they take after, though they apparently get average ages rather than picking their fate.



Weiley31 said:


> Poor Wood Elf and Drow don't get a teleport.



4e Eladrin are back!


----------



## overgeeked

Weiley31 said:


> Poor Wood Elf and Drow don't get a teleport.



I'll cry for them.

Weird how halfling and dwarf subraces are just gone, but gnomes stuck around. And elves get like 600 variations.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: Elves don't get the Updated Trance. :/


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

I like a lot of the things I see in the UA, especially making roleplaying elements like backgrounds more significant to character creation and gameplay. On the other hand, with the added customization and feats to choose from, etc., I hope they don't move away from simple, easy to understand archetypes. They make it easy for new players to grasp the concept, and they make it easier to whip up a character quickly, instead of spending hours building a character before being able to play. I think the canned backgrounds with the explicit allowance for modifying or building from scratch is a good way to achieve both goals.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Weiley31 said:


> Nothing worthwhile I expect. It still feels like they are just gonna have the "DMs" do those details. I guess we'll see.



There's a good chance they may bring in some of the rules from Xanthar's regarding toolkits and crafting, though.


----------



## Zaukrie

I know it's more complicated than most 5e, but I kind of like the games that have gradual crit and failure, where more awesome stuff happens when you exceed the number by at least ten.... And vice versa when you more by a lot.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Weiley31 said:


> Also: Elves don't get the Updated Trance. :/



That surprised me more than anything in the UA. I was sure all elves would be getting "swap out a skill proficiency when you finish your trance". That was like the one thing I was 100% expecting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Poor Wood Elf and Drow don't get a teleport.



you just made me jump back to that PDF thinking the highelf got teleport....

(FYI it is misty step not teleport)


----------



## Aldarc

overgeeked said:


> I'll cry for them.
> 
> Weird how halfling and dwarf subraces are just gone, but gnomes stuck around. And elves get like 600 variations.



Don't worry, the other 600 elven variations will come in future supplements.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> you just made me jump back to that PDF thinking the highelf got teleport....
> 
> (FYI it is misty step not teleport)



Close enough: it's a Teleport Lite. The Diet Soda of magical teleporting.


----------



## TwoSix

Aldarc said:


> Eberron even says that they are their own true-breeding race in their own right.
> 
> But I guess this does move them a bit closer to Tolkien half-elves where they may have to choose between which lineage they take after, though they apparently get average ages rather than picking their fate.



Realistically, I'm just going to let players use whichever version (2014 or 2024) they want.  The races aren't really changed that much anyway.


----------



## Ixal

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I like a lot of the things I see in the UA, especially making roleplaying elements like backgrounds more significant to character creation and gameplay. On the other hand, with the added customization and feats to choose from, etc., I hope they don't move away from simple, easy to understand archetypes. They make it easy for new players to grasp the concept, and they make it easier to whip up a character quickly, instead of spending hours building a character before being able to play. I think the canned backgrounds with the explicit allowance for modifying or building from scratch is a good way to achieve both goals.



Are backgrounds really more significant considering its a wild west and everyone can make up anything? Whats the significance of being a noble when at best it gives you a small boost to diplomacy or something.
Compare that to RPGs like Warhammer where being a nobles is a huge deal.


----------



## Leatherhead

Steampunkette said:


> I like some of the changes, of course...
> 
> But I'd still like to see just a -tiny- bit more done to the spell lists:
> 
> Arcane, Divine, *Occult, *Primal
> 
> Split out the "Dark and Questionable" magic to be it's own thing, rather than giving Wizards and Sorcerers the Warlock's unique and interesting spells.



No thank you. 
This precludes the superior option that had been suggested by the NPC warlocks in MotM: Subclass specific spell lists. There is no reason for all the various warlock patrons to grant the exact same spell lists. Even better, they can even have spells that are outside of any spell list to make them truly exclusive!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Also: Elves don't get the Updated Trance. :/



I missed that in my read through... that's true.  Another new ability that isn't represented (like dragon born replaceing attack with BW)


----------



## Weiley31

It is totally weird that Powerful Build and Elven Trance is pretty much the same. Like Brave is updated and the Dwarves with Poison are. So, I don't get it.


----------



## Aldarc

Unless the game makes poison damage useful, the Abyssal Tiefling will be pretty bottom of the barrel.


----------



## billd91

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.



I'm OK with this shift because of a few things:
1) the tension between racial stat bonus and class was never a "problem", it was just a desire for people to have all the best bonuses for their class regardless plus the racial features they wanted without any consideration for making trade-offs between class and racial archetype. Tensions like that aren't a bad thing.
2) Putting them with background gives you a reason to put together a rationale why you'd develop the attributes that would most advantage you in your latter decision to become a member of a class as you customize the background. In the case of a boost to wisdom, surely there are some types of criminals that would benefit or even specialize in being perceptive, noticing threatening situations, and being able to assess people - perhaps as security for some more important criminal gang, or as a lookout, or someone who ferrets out the unaffiliated con artists working in the gang's territory. That might even be worth swapping the stealth skill for insight. In any event, it should be pushing you to think of how it all works together rather than picking your best bennies a la carte.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> I missed that in my read through... that's true.  Another new ability that isn't represented (like dragon born replaceing attack with BW)



Oh yeah your right: No Fizban Breath Weapon update too.

Goodness, 2024's gonna look a bit weird if these aren't in by default.


----------



## overgeeked

Ixal said:


> Are backgrounds really more significant considering its a wild west and everyone can make up anything? Whats the significance of being a noble when at best it gives you a small boost to diplomacy or something.
> Compare that to RPGs like Warhammer where being a nobles is a huge deal.



I'd prefer some middle ground. The current version of the noble, with their automatic peasant mind control is rather silly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sir Brennen said:


> There's a good chance they may bring in some of the rules from Xanthar's regarding toolkits and crafting, though.



They already have. Advantage if both skill and tool apply.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

The Trance that let Astral Elves swap things was suggested as something unique to them.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Aldarc said:


> Unless the game makes poison damage useful, the Abyssal Tiefling will be pretty bottom of the barrel.



Lots of creatures deal poison damage.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> The Trance that let Astral Elves swap things was suggested as something unique to them.



yeah but then the shadar kia and gith got it too


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Is it a bit weird that backgrounds no longer give any kind of roleplaying benefit? Like how criminals had an NPC contact in the criminal underworld, or how sailors can secure free passage on a ship. Maybe these are just abridged versions of the backgrounds and don't include that sort of thing? Or maybe they are moving away from that sort of thing since it can just be roleplayed as needed as things that naturally lead from the characters' background.

The Spelljammer set includes the Wildspacer background, which as a feature allows you to ignore the usual disadvantage on melee weapon attacks in zero gravity. I don't see anything like that here.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

billd91 said:


> In the case of a boost to wisdom, surely there are some types of criminals that would benefit or even specialize in being perceptive, noticing threatening situations, and being able to assess people - perhaps as security for some more important criminal gang, or as a lookout, or someone who ferrets out the unaffiliated con artists working in the gang's territory. That might even be worth swapping the stealth skill for insight. In any event, it should be pushing you to think of how it all works together rather than picking your best bennies a la carte.



I agree, it seems like it could lead to deeper thinking about your character's place in the world, which is always nice.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah but then the shadar kia and gith got it too



Gith are not elves and live in the Astral Plane.


----------



## Weiley31

So far, I like things here and there, but I'm more neutral. Like I like the Ardlings for the reasons I stated before, and some of the stuff, like the Dwarves are pretty neat.

On the other hand, the fact they went backwards on things that were updated via currently released books, feels weird though. Especially if a new player looks at this and then looks at their buds' version of Fizban or other books. Unless it completely slipped their minds with the events of today's announcements and getting this ready for the Playtest packet. (Plus, the feedback survey unlocks on the 1st of September.)

I like what they did with Tavern Brawler. Not the first bullet point, but I like the remainder.  And it changes them from being Improvised Weapons to like, something with a decent damage die that isn't 1D4. Personally, I feel like this feat works well with Monks that specialize in Unarmed Attacks. Musician is pretty cool and the Healer is interesting too.


----------



## overgeeked

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Is it a bit weird that backgrounds no longer give any kind of roleplaying benefit? Like how criminals had an NPC contact in the criminal underworld, or how sailors can secure free passage on a ship. Maybe these are just abridged versions of the backgrounds and don't include that sort of thing? Or maybe they are moving away from that sort of thing since it can just be roleplayed as needed as things that naturally lead from the characters' background.
> 
> The Spelljammer set includes the Wildspacer background, which as a feature allows you to ignore the usual disadvantage on melee weapon attacks in zero gravity. I don't see anything like that here.



I think they learned the hard way that so-called "ribbon" abilities can wildly throw off games and that referees don't always apply them the say, thus creating a fractured play experience. So they're removing those ribbons and giving specific mechanical weight to backgrounds. Most from the other recent UAs have been some variant of "you get free food and lodging" as the only general RP-based perk.


----------



## Thommy H-H

The justifications for each language in the sample backgrounds fluff really appealed to me for some reason! I like the implicit worldbuilding, and that's a neat thing I hope they run with when they (presumably?) do setting-specific backgrounds. It feels like a good place to put that. Stuff like farmers knowing Halfling because they work from halfling-penned almanacs, Infernal being the "language of deception", or goblinoid generals writing tactical treatise. Feels a bit early 4E with those kinds of universal plug-and-play backstory elements.


----------



## overgeeked

Weiley31 said:


> On the other hand, the fact they went backwards on things that were updated via currently released books, feels weird though. Especially if a new player looks at this and then looks at their buds' version of Fizban or other books. Unless it completely slipped their minds with the events of today's announcements and getting this ready for the Playtest packet. (Plus, the feedback survey unlocks on the 1st of September.)



Gotta keep people buying Fizban's after 2024.


----------



## ehren37

Lucky seems potentially more balanced now that monsters don't crit.


----------



## Minigiant

Where is muh half elf!


----------



## Weiley31

MonsterEnvy said:


> Gith are not elves and live in the Astral Plane.



At least the Shardai-Kai have a legit excuse/reason for being able to use the updated Trance feature in regard to what they choose. And you don't even have to use the excuse that they are elves.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Is it a bit weird that backgrounds no longer give any kind of roleplaying benefit? Like how criminals had an NPC contact in the criminal underworld, or how sailors can secure free passage on a ship. Maybe these are just abridged versions of the backgrounds and don't include that sort of thing? Or maybe they are moving away from that sort of thing since it can just be roleplayed as needed as things that naturally lead from the characters' background.
> 
> The Spelljammer set includes the Wildspacer background, which as a feature allows you to ignore the usual disadvantage on melee weapon attacks in zero gravity. I don't see anything like that here.



It's possible that they didn't just include that part of the backgrounds with the initial playtest drop.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

MonsterEnvy said:


> The Trance that let Astral Elves swap things was suggested as something unique to them.



The unique thing about astral elves is that they could swap out a skill proficiency, in addition to a weapon or tool proficiency. In _Monsters of the Multiverse_, eladrin, sea elves, and shadar-kai can all swap out two weapon or tool proficiencies. Jeremy Crawford said it's because most elves are tapping into a shared elven memory bank, but astral elves are connecting to an even wider set of experiences via the astral plane (which is why githyanki also have this ability). So I was absolutely sure that the PHB elves would get the two weapon or tool proficiencies in the revised version.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

overgeeked said:


> I'll cry for them.
> 
> Weird how halfling and dwarf subraces are just gone, but gnomes stuck around. And elves get like 600 variations.




 It's matter on major biological or mystical differences, the Hill and Mountain Dwarves didn't have any, but the Deurgar do from the other Dwarves, so they would still be seperate, same with Ghostwise Halflings.


----------



## Weiley31

Minigiant said:


> Where is muh half elf!



In your perfectly good 2014 PHB book, that will still work with One-D&D because of Backwards Compatibility.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Upon reading "Adrling" I've now decided I don't like it or "Tiefling", which always had a ring of cutesy-ness to me. It's like "fingerling", an immature form of something.

I think I'm going to go with Nephilim and Cambion for those races (though traditional Nephilim and Cambions would still be things, too.)


----------



## Weiley31

overgeeked said:


> Gotta keep people buying Fizban's after 2024.



Don't forget those juicy Beyond subscriptions too!


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> Animal Headed part celestial people, basically Aasimar for none Angels and less human looking Gods.
> 
> Great for the Mulhorandi/Egyptian Gods.
> 
> I'm more convinced then ever that an FR One D&D Campaign Book is coming in 2024 because someone has to fit all this new stuff into FR lore some how so it all makes sense. I have a feeling Ardlings will be primarily tied to Mulhorand. And This new twice on Tieflings will need a lore explanation.



I think Eberron is looking likely: almost all of the mechanical options not covered between this new PHB and Monsters of the Multiverse are in Eberron.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

On the subject of dragonborn's breath weapon and the elven trance, can somebody Twitter-rize Crawford to see what they had in mind? @darjr 

I think having 2 sets of dragonborns (3 with the 2014 PHB) is going to be weird, to say the least.


----------



## overgeeked

Is this the first instance of sign language in D&D? That's cool.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Minigiant said:


> Where is muh half elf!



Here:


----------



## UngeheuerLich

overgeeked said:


> Is this the first instance of sign language in D&D? That's cool.



Nope. Drow had it for a long time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> In your perfectly good 2014 PHB book, that will still work with One-D&D because of Backwards Compatibility.



except for stats... and spell lists... and backgrounds...and feats. Other then that yup 20114phb all the way


----------



## billd91

overgeeked said:


> Is this the first instance of sign language in D&D? That's cool.



First one for Common that I'm aware of. Drow had one for their language since 1e days.


----------



## Minigiant

Rangers sharing spells with Druids!

But my Hunters Mark Exclusivity!
And my arrow spells?

 I hope rangers don't become minidruids and paladins miniclerics.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> except for stats... and spell lists... and backgrounds...and feats. Other then that yup 20114phb all the way



I can only save the world for so long. _shrugs_


----------



## Aldarc

MonsterEnvy said:


> Lots of creatures deal poison damage.



Lots are poison immune, probably one of the most if not the most common monster immunity.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sir Brennen said:


> Here:
> View attachment 258279



the thing is this is an elf or human reskinned... for the last 30 years at least half elf has NOT been just a human or elf that looks different but a distinctive choice... and again for something that promise "We are only adding new things not taking things away" they have taken away half orc and half elf...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> except for stats... and spell lists... and backgrounds...and feats. Other then that yup 20114phb all the way




What you miss is that compatibility does not mean that you can mix everything together. But that you can use 2024 pcs in 2014 adventures, alongside 2024 characters.
Monsters not being able to crit won't change a thing.
PC crits only for weapon damage rolls is a differwen thing. Here you might either say: only one rule, or each character uses the respective rule of their edition. And so on.
I currently don't see why a 2024 gnome can't play with a 2014 one.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Minigiant said:


> Rangers sharing spells with Druids!
> 
> But my Hunters Mark Exclusivity!
> And my arrow spells?
> 
> I hope rangers don't become minidruids and paladins miniclerics.



In the video discussing this UA, it's mentioned that classes will have some of their own unique spells still in addition to their "core" list.


----------



## Weiley31

Minigiant said:


> Rangers sharing spells with Druids!
> 
> But my Hunters Mark Exclusivity!
> And my arrow spells?
> 
> I hope rangers don't become minidruids and paladins miniclerics.



Rangers are pretty much the martial branch of the Druidic faith anyway.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Aldarc said:


> Lots are poison immune, probably one of the most if not the most common monster immunity.



Yes but players don't tend to be, so poison resistance is very helpful.


----------



## Zaukrie

Weiley31 said:


> Rangers are pretty much the martial branch of the Druidic faith anyway.



Not in any game I've played in.


----------



## Weiley31

Zaukrie said:


> Not in any game I've played in.



You do you boo.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> What you miss is that compatibility does not mean that you can mix everything together. But that you can use 2024 pcs in 2014 adventures, alongside 2024 characters.



as I keep being told, you can draw up a 2014 PHB character and sit next to a 2024 character... you know but you can't by this playtest.


UngeheuerLich said:


> I currently don't see why a 2024 gnome can't play with a 2014 one.



without looking over the gnomes I don't know... but off hand the 2014 one gets +2/+1 to a stat the 2014 one doesnt


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Rangers sharing spells with Druids!
> 
> But my Hunters Mark Exclusivity!
> And my arrow spells?
> 
> I hope rangers don't become minidruids and paladins miniclerics.




Read the text that says: in the class playtest, you see how some classes get extra spells from different spell lists.

And for hunter's mark: we all knew that it won't survive as a spell since tasha.
Hunter's mark did more harm then good.
Concentration for a melee class without con saving throw proficiency... ouch.
Better frontload that damage.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Weiley31 said:


> Don't forget those juicy Beyond subscriptions too!



Beyond Subs are mainly for content sharing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> as I keep being told, you can draw up a 2014 PHB character and sit next to a 2024 character... you know but you can't by this playtest.
> 
> without looking over the gnomes I don't know... but off hand the 2014 one gets +2/+1 to a stat the 2014 one doesnt




But the 2024 one gets them from background...


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> as I keep being told, you can draw up a 2014 PHB character and sit next to a 2024 character... you know but you can't by this playtest.
> 
> without looking over the gnomes I don't know... but off hand the 2014 one gets +2/+1 to a stat the 2014 one doesnt



Thank goodness the 2024 Gnome does that the 2024 Gnome doesn't get.


----------



## Minigiant

Sir Brennen said:


> Here:
> View attachment 258279



But He's an half elf not an elf that looks like a human. Stupid Elrond.


Weiley31 said:


> Rangers are pretty much the martial branch of the Druidic faith anyway.



Not any ranger I saw.


----------



## Weiley31

MonsterEnvy said:


> Beyond Subs are mainly for content sharing.



Baator if I know, I don't really Beyond that much. It's only until recently with the free stuff that I've dipped my toes into it.


----------



## billd91

UngeheuerLich said:


> But the 2024 one gets them from background...



Yeah, whether the gnome gets it from race (2014) or background (2024), the bonuses are the same in value - just potentially different in allocation.


----------



## Weiley31

Minigiant said:


> Not any ranger I saw.



Gotta adjust your sunglasses.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

so the halfling is the lightfoot, and they just left the stout out. (I am fine with this I prefer ghost wise myself)


----------



## Weiley31

I'm trying to think, IIRC, the website did say we would be getting monthly One-D&D UAs like this. I wonder if the class one is next or when that will come eventually.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> as I keep being told, you can draw up a 2014 PHB character and sit next to a 2024 character... you know but you can't by this playtest.




What are the big breaks from the PC side if one player has a character from the 2014 book and the other has one from the 2024 books?


----------



## Sir Brennen

UngeheuerLich said:


> What you miss is that compatibility does not mean that you can mix everything together. But that you can use 2024 pcs in 2014 adventures, alongside 2024 characters.
> Monsters not being able to crit won't change a thing.
> PC crits only for weapon damage rolls is a differwen thing. Here you might either say: only one rule, or each character uses the respective rule of their edition. And so on.
> I currently don't see why a 2024 gnome can't play with a 2014 one.



Yeah, this *is *a rules update, not just a supplement with additional material. To expect everything to be 100% compatible so people can use both PHB versions side-by-side is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Adventures are a different story.


----------



## Minigiant

Weiley31 said:


> Gotta adjust your sunglasses.



Rangers have spells for that.

Well had. Back when rangers got eye spells.


----------



## Steampunkette

Leatherhead said:


> No thank you.
> This precludes the superior option that had been suggested by the NPC warlocks in MotM: Subclass specific spell lists. There is no reason for all the various warlock patrons to grant the exact same spell lists. Even better, they can even have spells that are outside of any spell list to make them truly exclusive!



That doesn't preclude that option any more than an Arcane spell list means they can't give Wizard Subclasses unique spell lists.

It just means Warlocks would get their own cool dark spell list that could also be applied to other "Dark" spellcasters and things that isn't the same as the Wizard list.

Mostly I separate it out 'cause I like having "Black Magic" be a -thing- in the game which actually means something.

Also: Bards should get the option of choosing whether to be Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal.


----------



## billd91

Cadence said:


> What are the big breaks from the PC side if one player has a character from the 2014 book and the other has one from the 2024 books?



Looks like the 2014 one is missing the 1st level feat and the two versions may have somewhat different racial abilities. Spot the 2014 a 1st level feat and your conversion is probably cromulent enough to go.

Edit: That is, based on what we know so far... we'll have to see about how things work out with class changes.


----------



## Cadence

Minigiant said:


> But He's an half elf not an elf that looks like a human. Stupid Elrond.




Didn't all the half-elven in Tolkien have to pick one side or the other?


----------



## Sir Brennen

GMforPowergamers said:


> as I keep being told, you can draw up a 2014 PHB character and sit next to a 2024 character.. [..]



Citation needed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sir Brennen said:


> Yeah, this *is *a rules update, not just a supplement with additional material. To expect everything to be 100% compatible so people can use both PHB versions side-by-side is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Adventures are a different story.



A stretch and too redundant to sell.

The changes we see are along the lines I expected. I am not sure I totally like everything, but there are a few changes I expected:

Slow as condition 
backgrounds with feats
alert giving proficiency bonus to initiative

actually I think, surprised needs to be a condition too. But maybe we get a better overhaul...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> What are the big breaks from the PC side if one player has a character from the 2014 book and the other has one from the 2024 books?



the same feat (lucky, healer ect) works different. yoou have a background feature but not a feat.


----------



## ko6ux

Weiley31 said:


> I do like how the Dwarf has Tremor sense. Something about it seems cinematic or something that like would happen in a Lord of the Rings style movie.




But only on stone!
dwarf: "I'll use my tremorsense."
dm: "But you're on a wooden floor in a building."
dwarf: "Yes, but it's a stone foundation underneath."
dm: ""Uh, OK."

The next session:

dwarf: "I'll use my tremorsense."
dm: "But you are in a cloud giant city.  The ground is literally ... clouds."
dwarf: "Yes, but it's a stone foundation underneath."
dm: @_@


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sir Brennen said:


> Citation needed.



you are free to go back over the last month every time this comes up and I called it 5.5/6/anniversary edition and I was told nothing was changing you can use or mix and match 2014 phb and 2024 phb...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Cadence said:


> Didn't all the half-elven in Tolkien have to pick one side or the other?




And I think he was just an elf with a different name...

I think the closest to half-elves were the Dunedains (like Aragorn). But then they were mostly human...

I still think there should be an optional rule that allows to mix features of different races to create a half x/y variant.


----------



## Weiley31

ko6ux said:


> But only on stone!
> dwarf: "I'll use my tremorsense."
> dm: "But you're on a wooden floor in a building."
> dwarf: "Yes, but it's a stone foundation underneath."
> dm: ""Uh, OK."
> 
> The next session:
> 
> dwarf: "I'll use my tremorsense."
> dm: "But you are in a cloud giant city.  The ground is literally ... clouds."
> dwarf: "Yes, but it's a stone foundation underneath."
> dm: @_@



_*AND *_It was built by a Stone Giant.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Leatherhead said:


> The Video goes over some interesting points:
> Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts and a level 1 feat.
> Feats are now separated into levels, level 1 feats don't have stats, higher level feats can have a +1 bonus for a stat in order to soften the blow of having to pick between ASIs and a Feat.
> Crits are a player only thing, with spells not being able to crit, effectively Martial only.
> The spell lists are going to be split up into Arcane, Divine, and Primal. Classes will pick one of the lists and have additional spells added to their lists.
> Races are going to get new options.
> Inspiration is going to be reworked so that the DM doesn't have to remember it all the time.



And yet, because the all-important math isn't being changed, somehow all this stuff doesn't make this a new edition?  This is at least a 1e-2e shift.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> the same feat (lucky, healer ect) works different. yoou have a background feature but not a feat.



But as a player using the book you have (2014 or 2024) does that change anything as far as being able to play still and not be too off power-wise?


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> the same feat (lucky, healer ect) works different. yoou have a background feature but not a feat.



Just updated to include the Feat. Problem solved.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Quick observations:

All feats are fair game as background feats. Anyone can start with Find Familiar now, if they want.
Anyone can learn Thieves Cant.
(Really cool) There's now Common Sign Language, as a separate language.
1 language, 1 tool (not 2 and zero)
feats slightly re-written. e. g. Lucky was made STRONGER!?! (it's now prof bonus number of luck points)
Primal/Arcane/Divine spells now codified with selected spell lists (no post PHB spells?)
you no longer get a purse to hold your starting gold.


----------



## Yaarel

I want 2024 to be the edition that stops referring to "spell level", in contrast to "class level".

Spell level really is confusing for people. Even when I am familiar with it, I find my sentences becoming unnecessarily convoluted when I happen to be talking about class level and spell level at the same time, plus spell slots.

This has to stop!

I would be fine with refer to all spells by "spell points". So, Fireball is a 3-point spell. Wall of Force is a 5-point spell.

It doesnt have to be called "points". At this point, anything is better than "levels".


----------



## Minigiant

Cadence said:


> Didn't all the half-elven in Tolkien have to pick one side or the other?



Sure.

But few played D&D that way. D&D 5e was heavily pushing an outcast or negotiator route.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet, because the all-important math isn't being changed, somehow all this stuff doesn't make this a new edition?  This is at least a 1e-2e shift.



thank you


----------



## Mistwell

First Level (UA) Feat Ranking:
*Top Tier*: Lucky, Alert, Magic Initiate
*Middle Tier*: Healer, Tavern Brawler, Tough, Musician
*Bottom Tier*: Skilled, Savage Attacker, Crafter


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> the thing is this is an elf or human reskinned... for the last 30 years at least half elf has NOT been just a human or elf that looks different but a distinctive choice... and again for something that promise "We are only adding new things not taking things away" they have taken away half orc and half elf...



We do not know that these are all the races that will be available for the entirety of the playtest. It's jumping the gun just a little, tiny bit to say that since half-orcs and half-elves aren't in this very first playtest doc on the very first day that therefore they are gone from D&D.


----------



## Aldarc

UngeheuerLich said:


> And I think he was just an elf with a different name...
> 
> I think the closest to half-elves were the Dunedains (like Aragorn). But then they were mostly human...
> 
> I still think there should be an optional rule that allows to mix features of different races to create a half x/y variant.



Yeah, if I were to play a Dunedain, I would probably pick a half-elf as it has a similar niche.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Rikka66 said:


> I don't like killing players.





DarkCrisis said:


> A DM never “accidentally” kills a player. It’s either the will of the dice or he does it on purpose.



When DMs start killing players, it's a pretty clear sign that there is a problem with how people are observing the social contract at the table.

Homicide does not typically belong in the DM toolbox.


----------



## Sir Brennen

UngeheuerLich said:


> actually I think, surprised needs to be a condition too. But maybe we get a better overhaul...



It's weird... Surprised is treated like a condition under Incapacitated, where you get Disadvantage on Initiative. But it doesn't have its own entry in the Glossary.

Kind of like being Paralyzed means you also have the Incapacitated condition in the current rules.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> But as a player using the book you have (2014 or 2024) does that change anything as far as being able to play still and not be too off power-wise?





Weiley31 said:


> Just updated to include the Feat. Problem solved.



yes you can just use the 2024 book... but is that still useing the 2014 booK?  as for how much power it is, I don't know but it more likely then not will get you told "Here, use this book instead"


----------



## Weiley31

I can't wait for the next Beyond UA test packet to have not only the Half-Elf and the Half-Orc, but also an errata fix for the Hadozee's jump glide and Chameleon Carapace for Thri-Kreen Monks!


----------



## Sir Brennen

GMforPowergamers said:


> you are free to go back over the last month every time this comes up and I called it 5.5/6/anniversary edition and I was told nothing was changing you can use or mix and match 2014 phb and 2024 phb...



Told by who? I don't recall any official mention that it would be the case, and I really didn't expect that degree of compatibility to ever be the case.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> We do not know that these are all the races that will be available for the entirety of the playtest. It's jumping the gun just a little, tiny bit to say that since half-orcs and half-elves aren't in this very first playtest doc on the very first day that therefore they are gone from D&D.



in the interview Crawford said they replaced half orc... I will admit I assumed this applied to half elf too.

I just see my feedback already that both of those need to stay distinctive.


----------



## Weiley31

Man, my DND table is gonna be weird when I DM. I'm gonna be having both 2014/2024 content going at the same time and Adventure League is gonna be so confused that they are gonna shoot my cat.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet, because the all-important math isn't being changed, somehow all this stuff doesn't make this a new edition?  This is at least a 1e-2e shift.



Right now, it's just a reframing of the various character build elements with some slightly different philosophies used.  The change is about at the level of a base 4e->Essentials to me.  Now, if they do something like make pre-2024 subclasses not work with 2024 classes, or change the skill list, then we're at a level of change where I feel like "backwards compatible" isn't credible.

And honestly, 2e really didn't need to be called a different edition, anyway.  I'm not an expert on 1e, but I recall very little changing other than level limits being raised and NWP being made standard.  Was there anything that stopped a 1e half-orc assassin from being playable in a 2e game?


----------



## Leatherhead

Steampunkette said:


> That doesn't preclude that option any more than an Arcane spell list means they can't give Wizard Subclasses unique spell lists.
> 
> It just means Warlocks would get their own cool dark spell list that could also be applied to other "Dark" spellcasters and things that isn't the same as the Wizard list.



There is no reason for all warlocks to share a "dark" spell list. Firstly, not all warlocks are dark, secondly there is no reason for all warlocks to have tentacles and hellfire. And thirdly, why shouldn't sorcerer have "dark" magic? Sorcerers and warlocks have very close themes.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes you can just use the 2024 book... but is that still useing the 2014 booK?  as for how much power it is, I don't know but it more likely then not will get you told "Here, use this book instead"



So, from the DM side. If you're DMing using the 2014 book, and a player you trust didn't understand and shows up with the 2024 book and a character for it - do you let them play it or make them convert it?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sir Brennen said:


> Told by who? I don't recall any official mention



I'm sorry I don't remember using 'official mention' either... in fact my argument for months has been NO PEOPLE ON THESE BOARDS DON"T KNOW WHAT IS COMING.... so I would say the exact opposite of official.   but boy was I told it over and over and over again. 


Sir Brennen said:


> I really didn't expect that degree of compatibility to ever be the case.



neither did I... infact I have been saying so since the announcement of it, and being told I was wrong


----------



## darjr

These are more changes than I expected. But I dint think it’s 2e level. Dunno yet. 

I do know that’s it’s a playtest and they want to try a lot of things.

There going to come fast and probably change a lot. Who’s forming groups? I’m going to at my FLGS if I can. Maybe one on line too.


----------



## Cadence

Sir Brennen said:


> Told by who? I don't recall any official mention that it would be the case, and I really didn't expect that degree of compatibility to ever be the case.



What do you take backward compatible to mean?


----------



## CleverNickName

I don't understand how folks think this is a completely new edition of D&D.  It feels more like someone's house-rules for character creation to me.

Besides.  I think that branding it as a new edition right now, when all of the 5th Edition graphs are up and to the right, would be a _really bad idea_.

EDIT:  I read the FAQ over on D&D Beyond, and...it didn't spark joy.  I might be mistaken about this being a new edition.


----------



## darjr

Cadence said:


> So, from the DM side. If you're DMing using the 2014 book, and a player you trust didn't understand and shows up with the 2024 book and a character for it - do you let them play it or make them convert it?



I’d let them play it. House rules may happen but that’s going to be true anyway.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Yaarel said:


> I want 2024 to be the edition that stops referring to "spell level", in contrast to "class level".
> 
> Spell level really is confusing for people. Even when I am familiar with it, I find my sentences becoming unnecessarily convoluted when I happen to be talking about class level and spell level at the same time, plus spell slots.
> 
> This has to stop!
> 
> I would be fine with refer to all spells by "spell points". So, Fireball is a 3-point spell. Wall of Force is a 5-point spell.
> 
> It doesnt have to be called "points". At this point, anything is better than "levels".




In german DnD they are called:

"Zauber des 1. Grades" etc.

Probably best translated as "1st grade". I'd like that.


----------



## Faolyn

Can I just say I hate the name ardling? While I realize there's probably enough people who made _ass_imar jokes to warrant the name change, ardling just makes me think they're, like, half aardvark or half aardwolf.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> So, from the DM side. If you're DMing using the 2014 book, and a player you trust didn't understand and shows up with the 2024 book and a character for it - do you let them play it or make them convert it?



me personally, no, I hadn them the book we are useing and help them (if they need it) to adapt to the game I am running... but it's weird I normally do a character creation night (I have been trying to get used to calling it session 0) so that could not happen


----------



## cbwjm

overgeeked said:


> We do not know that these are all the races that will be available for the entirety of the playtest. It's jumping the gun just a little, tiny bit to say that since half-orcs and half-elves aren't in this very first playtest doc on the very first day that therefore they are gone from D&D.



Seems that they're gone. They've been relegated to a side bar which more or less says you're an elf or human but you live longer than a human but less than an elf.


----------



## Aldarc

TwoSix said:


> Right now, it's just a reframing of the various character build elements with some slightly different philosophies used.  The change is about at the level of a base 4e->Essentials to me.  Now, if they do something like make pre-2024 subclasses not work with 2024 classes, or change the skill list, then we're at a level of change where I feel like "backwards compatible" isn't credible.
> 
> And honestly, 2e really didn't need to be called a different edition, anyway.  I'm not an expert on 1e, but I recall very little changing other than level limits being raised and NWP being made standard.  Was there anything that stopped a 1e half-orc assassin from being playable in a 2e game?



So far, this feels almost like 3.0 -> 3.5 to me but with some pretty big changes (e.g., dropped/new races, etc.).


----------



## cbwjm

Faolyn said:


> Can I just say I hate the name ardling? While I realize there's probably enough people who made _ass_imar jokes to warrant the name change, ardling just makes me think they're, like, half aardvark or half aardwolf.



I'm not sure these are aasimar, seem more like they come from the guardinals, animal like celestials from some plane I forget the name of.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm going to drive home and make some dinner, when I come back (not sure if it will be tonight or tomorrow) I wonder what new things will be found


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> So, from the DM side. If you're DMing using the 2014 book, and a player you trust didn't understand and shows up with the 2024 book and a character for it - do you let them play it or make them convert it?



For what possible reason would I not let them play it?  More importantly, why would I sit and specify what book I'm using?

Ultimately, each book just presents a way to get to the same endpoint...a playable character.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Weiley31 said:


> Chameleon Carapace for Thri-Kreen Monks!



There is no need for this. Rules are crystal clear there... 

and to the topic:

I think, since everyone gets a tool now, tool extras akin to Xanathar's tool benefits would nicely replace the background feature. 
Navigator's tools already gave you a benefit that worked well for sailors or outlanders.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Faolyn said:


> Can I just say I hate the name ardling? While I realize there's probably enough people who made _ass_imar jokes to warrant the name change, ardling just makes me think they're, like, half aardvark or half aardwolf.



Aasimars seemingly still exist as they're depicted in MotM, they're just being more explicitly themed as "angel planetouched" - which they pretty much have always been in 5E, to be honest - while Ardlings are picking up the less human-looking "hound archon, guardinal, asuras, etc." type celestials.


----------



## overgeeked

cbwjm said:


> Seems



That word is carrying a lot of the weight of that sentence and also causing people to flip out a bit. Seems =/= are. We don't have enough info either way.


----------



## Remathilis

Ok, initial impressions.

First Thought: I think Pathfinder continues to have a large impression on D&D and vice versa. It's easy to see some interesting ideas lifted from PF2e (much like how PF2e lifted from 4e/5e) without doing the same exact thing. The generalized spell lists are good example of this. Perhaps the greatest thing that happened to D&D was this parallel evolution of the D&D kernel...

It feels weird not to have half-elves or half-orcs, but I figured this was going to happen (see PF2e note above). 

I love how lifespan and height averages are given as racial traits. Wish they were there for the Multiverse Races...

I HATE the Lineages of Gnomes and Elves. HATE. As of Spelljammer, we have seven types of elves (high, wood, drow, shadar-kai, eladrin, sea, and astral). Four of them are separate races with semi-unique mechanics, and three are options of a generic "elf" race that is only differentiated by the spells and cantrips they gain. Ugly, bad, No! Make High elf, Wood elf, and (especially) drow unique separate races like sea, eladrin, shadar-kai and astral elves are. Give wood elves and high elves something more interesting than bonus spells. And for the Love of Corellon, don't give High Elves Misty Step when we already have THREE other teleporting elves! Bad, Lazy, No!
Gnomes are just the same: sub-races without using that word. Either make both gnomes separate "races" like the deep gnome OR blend them into one race equal parts tinker and forest fey.

Dragonborn were fine in Fizban. This feels like a step back, but I haven't run the math to see if and how badly...

Looks like Thieves Cant is becoming a language and not just a class ribbon. Good. 

Overall, I like the background changes. I like the updates to the first level feats. Some of the default choices feel weird, but they're just suggestions for the indecisive. I kinda want to backport Artisan, Pilgrim and Cultist into the current paradigm (seems easy enough to do).

I'm not sure how I like the crit-rules. I'm likewise ambivalent about the nat 20/1 on saves/skills, but they don't kill the game. I also like inspiration being more accessible because most of the time, I forget to award it and my PCs forget to use it. 

Eldritch Blast not on the Arcane List means its either 1.) Not in the game (unlikely) 2.) Warlock exlcusive and not cherry-pickable or 3.) no longer a spell but a class feature. My money's on 2. 

Interesting changes so far, but aside from the elf (and to lesser extent gnome) changes, I like where things are going...


----------



## Yaarel

"gods"


----------



## Faolyn

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Aasimars seemingly still exist as they're depicted in MotM, they're just being more explicitly themed as "angel planetouched", which they pretty much have always been in 5E, while Ardlings are picking up the less human-looking "hound archon, guardinal, asuras, etc." type celestials.





cbwjm said:


> I'm not sure these are aasimar, seem more like they come from the guardinals, animal like celestials from some plane I forget the name of.



Could be. I still don't like the name.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Faolyn said:


> Could be. I still don't like the name.



_Shrugs_

Not that big of a fan of the name either, but goofy-named celestial planetouched are a D&D tradition...

The name they end up going with is ultimately an easy thing to change or ignore.


----------



## Aldarc

Yaarel said:


> "gods"



It's the D&D multiverse. Gods are a thing in it. Do what you like in your own homebrew.


----------



## rooneg

Weiley31 said:


> Man, my DND table is gonna be weird when I DM. I'm gonna be having both 2014/2024 content going at the same time and Adventure League is gonna be so confused that they are gonna shoot my cat.



Ehh, AL has been periodically confused over some significant change for months at a time for years, it'll work itself out.


----------



## Weiley31

rooneg said:


> Ehh, AL has been periodically confused over some significant change for months at a time for years, it'll work itself out.



True. But I could totally care less about AL since I don't participate in it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins | One D&D​All playest docs (this and upcoming UA) work with your existing 5e books.
> 
> So not 6e?



If they playtested 2e, all the material would have worked with your existing 1e books.

So yes 6e.


----------



## cbwjm

overgeeked said:


> That word is carrying a lot of the weight of that sentence and also causing people to flip out a bit. Seems =/= are. We don't have enough info either way.



It's not just the word "seems" that's carrying the weight, it's the fact that there is a side bar pretty much telling you exactly how to make a half-race, it even mentions the tradition parents human and an orc or elf. So unless they get a lot of negative feedback about that, then yeah, it looks very likely that the half-races are gone.


----------



## Faolyn

Yaarel said:


> "gods"



Gods. That's what they are in this game. They are not the same as any real-life gods or religions, even if they share a name with them.


----------



## cbwjm

Faolyn said:


> Could be. I still don't like the name.



Oh yeah, neither do I. Who knows, it might grow on me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Remathilis said:


> Dragonborn were fine in Fizban. This feels like a step back, but I haven't run the math to see if and how badly...




1d10+level is a better (and smoother) scaling than xd10 at certain levels.
It is half a poimt of damage behind on level 5, but apart from that is is at least as high as the fizban damage at every level.

As to usable as action instead of as an attack, my gut feeling tells me that we should wait and see how extra attack is worded in the class UA.

I think inspiration is a big winner here. Maybe now I won't forget it all the time.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> I will still use them because the function differently in our game, but it is not stupid. In reality crits on a 20 are bit silly. I prefer the PF2 approach to crits as it is related to skill not luck (though a bit less exciting at the table).



But only silly for monsters, right?


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> If they playtested 2e, all the material would have worked with your existing 1e books.
> 
> So yes 6e.



As I have said before, I don't really consider 1e-2e an edition change compared to 2e-3e-4e-5e either. 

So I am still good with: not 6e. It really is more like software update versus a completely new OS. It is more like OS 5.3 than an OS 6.


----------



## Micah Sweet

OB1 said:


> Yep, that's how it appears.  Again, I'm surprised that they are shifting that much.  Wonder how compatible 2024+ adventures will be with the 2014 OS?
> 
> Note I'm not saying this is a good/bad thing at this point, just surprised!



The bad thing about it is that they're not calling it a new edition.  Otherwise this is all fine.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Weiley31 said:


> I've totally missed that memo since the day they came to be.



I always thought it was pronounced..

"Ahhhh-forget it"

Just like the Aaracockra.

If it means so much to you be first in line at the alphabetization contest that you have 2 A's at the front of your race name, you are not cool enough to be a fantasy race.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> But only silly for monsters, right?



No, silly for everyone.  The important thing, in reality, is that crits are fun, not realistic or simulations.  And in my 30+ years of experience they are more fun for the players than the DM. I have many found memories of rolling a crit as a player, but I can't think one as a DM (and I DM 99% of the time). So from a game fun perspective I don't think it is a loss and ultimately that is what is most important.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> The bad thing about it is that they're not calling it a new edition.  Otherwise this is all fine.



Yes the are. They are calling it D&D One.


----------



## Zaukrie

Tremorsense and other things....seem kind of backgroundy to me. Some of the cantrips also. I'm clearly not in the majority here, but I'm unsure yet how I feel about the various racial traits.


----------



## Cadence

dave2008 said:


> Yes the are. They are calling it D&D One.



That name strikes me as the absolute worst thing about it.


----------



## dave2008

Zaukrie said:


> Tremorsense and other things....seem kind of backgroundy to me. Some of the cantrips also. I'm clearly not in the majority here, but I'm unsure yet how I feel about the various racial traits.



Well that is why this is a playtest. Take the survey on 9/1!


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> It feels weird not to have half-elves or half-orcs, but I figured this was going to happen (see PF2e note above).



I'm not happy about the half-whatevers at all. I like how Level Up does it: one heritage's traits and another heritage's gifts. For this edition, I'd put an asterisk next to certain racial traits and let you swap one for another race's asterisked trait (with the idea that the asterisked traits are all of "equal value"). 



Remathilis said:


> I HATE the Lineages of Gnomes and Elves. HATE. As of Spelljammer, we have seven types of elves (high, wood, drow, shadar-kai, eladrin, sea, and astral). Four of them are separate races with semi-unique mechanics, and three are options of a generic "elf" race that is only differentiated by the spells and cantrips they gain. Ugly, bad, No! Make High elf, Wood elf, and (especially) drow unique separate races like sea, eladrin, shadar-kai and astral elves are. Give wood elves and high elves something more interesting than bonus spells. And for the Love of Corellon, don't give High Elves Misty Step when we already have THREE other teleporting elves! Bad, Lazy, No!
> Gnomes are just the same: sub-races without using that word. Either make both gnomes separate "races" like the deep gnome OR blend them into one race equal parts tinker and forest fey.



I would actually go in a different direction. Have elves. The end. Drow, wood elves, high elves, whatever... all different cultures. Just let the player pick if they want _dancing lights, prestidigitation, _or _druidcraft._ Ditto for gnomes. Let them choose the cantrip and pick from _speak with animals_ and a new 1st-level spell with a 1 gp material component that create a clockwork toy.

If new elf subraces come into play, then just give a brief description and say "add _cantrip name_ to the list of spells you can choose when you decide to play an elf."



Remathilis said:


> I'm not sure how I like the crit-rules. I'm likewise ambivalent about the nat 20/1 on saves/skills, but they don't kill the game. I also like inspiration being more accessible because most of the time, I forget to award it and my PCs forget to use it.



At my table, we allow up to three inspiration at a time. At the end of each game, the DM gives one inspiration and then the players, as a group, award one inspiration to a different player.



Remathilis said:


> Eldritch Blast not on the Arcane List means its either 1.) Not in the game (unlikely) 2.) Warlock exlcusive and not cherry-pickable or 3.) no longer a spell but a class feature. My money's on 2.



I'm actually kind of upset they didn't create an eldritch spell list, like how PF2 has an occult spell list.


----------



## dave2008

Cadence said:


> That name strikes me as the absolute worst thing about it.



I mean, just like 5th edition, they will simply refer to it as Dungeons and Dragons on the books, etc.  I can't believe people are getting so worked up over what it is called.


----------



## darjr

dave2008 said:


> Yes the are. They are calling it D&D One.



That’s just the code name for the playtest. Isn’t it?


----------



## cbwjm

I 


Remathilis said:


> Dragonborn were fine in Fizban. This feels like a step back, but I haven't run the math to see if and how badly...



I skimmed past dragonborn because I thought they were the same, not sure how I feel about this change and think I prefer the replace an attack version of Fizban's. I really don't think they need to Revise dragonborn again.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Zaukrie said:


> Tremorsense and other things....seem kind of backgroundy to me. Some of the cantrips also. I'm clearly not in the majority here, but I'm unsure yet how I feel about the various racial traits.



Tremorsense seems like a reasonable "all dwarves have this semi-magical ability" to me, but Forge Wise definitely feels like a cultural thing that could vary by individual.


----------



## darjr

I may be wrong about the D&D one name.


----------



## dave2008

darjr said:


> That’s just the code name for the playtest.



Yes, its seems more the code name for the 3 pillars going forward. They will just call it D&D on all the books, etc.


----------



## dave2008

cbwjm said:


> I
> 
> I skimmed past dragonborn because I thought they were the same, not sure how I feel about this change and think I prefer the replace an attack version of Fizban's. I really don't think they need to Revise dragonborn again.



Then say so in the survey? That is the point of a playtest!


----------



## Zaukrie

Big fan of Alert. Especially the ability to change order.


----------



## HammerMan

So they aren’t calling it 6e but it is a new edition.  I am getting lots of 4e vibes. I hope that means martial heroes will get some love this time around (maybe even warlord coming back).  A few things seem odd but I’m sure it will just take some getting used to.


----------



## DarkCrisis

CleverNickName said:


> I don't understand how folks think this is a completely new edition of D&D.  It feels more like someone's house-rules for character creation to me.
> 
> Besides.  I think that branding it as a new edition right now, when all of the 5th Edition graphs are up and to the right, would be a _really bad idea_.



We who were around for 3.5 remember.  WotC: "Its not a new edition."  Yeah it basically was.

No one wants to have someone show up and be like "I'm using a 2014 Fighter with these 2014 Feats/weapons/whatever."


----------



## HammerMan

darjr said:


> That’s just the code name for the playtest. Isn’t it?



I think it’s an overall marketing name


----------



## Haplo781

Yaarel said:


> I want 2024 to be the edition that stops referring to "spell level", in contrast to "class level".
> 
> Spell level really is confusing for people. Even when I am familiar with it, I find my sentences becoming unnecessarily convoluted when I happen to be talking about class level and spell level at the same time, plus spell slots.
> 
> This has to stop!
> 
> I would be fine with refer to all spells by "spell points". So, Fireball is a 3-point spell. Wall of Force is a 5-point spell.
> 
> It doesnt have to be called "points". At this point, anything is better than "levels".



"Level" is fine as long as it's the same as character level.


----------



## HammerMan

Zaukrie said:


> Big fan of Alert. Especially the ability to change order.



Me too and it doesn’t negate surprise anymore


----------



## DarkCrisis

Cadence said:


> That name strikes me as the absolute worst thing about it.



D&D U


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> The bad thing about it is that they're not calling it a new edition.  Otherwise this is all fine.




Is it really worth arguing about semantics?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

dave2008 said:


> As I have said before, I don't really consider 1e-2e an edition change compared to 2e-3e-4e-5e either.
> 
> So I am still good with: not 6e. It really is more like software update versus a completely new OS. It is more like OS 5.3 than an OS 6.



I mean, the trouble with this sort of software comparison is that are are version changes in software from say, 8.0 to 8.3 which completely and totally change the software to the point where it's basically unrecognisable and gains dozens of huge features whilst losing some obscure but relied upon ones, and there are like 8.0 to 10.5 changes where the software is basically identical and indistinguishable (and yeah I'm thinking of software I actually work with).

So I would say your OS comparison is _actively unhelpful_.

Stick to edition comparisons, imho.

And this is a much bigger change, already, than 3E to 3.5E. It's all very well saying "Well 1E to 2E wasn't an edition change, really!", except that it was. As a matter of cold fact.

This is looking to be very similar to the 1E to 2E edition change. As predicted, I should say.

Lots of interesting stuff in here. Most of it is good. Some of it is a bit mediocre - Dragonborn kind of suck, for example, even if they scale slightly better. Common being from Sigil is absolutely wild/fascinating (was this ever lore before? If so I long forgot it), and puts Planescape at the centre of the multiverse in a very firm way.

Most of the Feat changes seem solid. The discount on buying magical items on Crafter is kind of funny and no doubt someone flipped their computer desk over it already, because they know it means magic items are going to be more buyable in 1D&D. Not many Feats which is a tad disappointing, hopefully they'll add some more.

Inspiration rules are the worst thing in there because they contain two instances of total boneheadedness. Firstly, you have to decide to use Inspiration before the roll. Wrong. Just outright wrong. They're doing things like changing 1/20 to reflect how groups play, but trying to get people to pre-declare Inspiration. No. You need to be able to decide after the roll. Also, they're falling into just old traps where they aren't realistic about how the game is played. People roll dice first and quickly, don't try and make them hem and haw before rolling dice, it slows the game down and is no fun. Secondly, you can only have one. Stupid. I can see limiting it to prevent hoarding, but that plus "u must declare b4 rolling" is pure bonehead - it'd be very easy to get a group full on Inspiration and having to waste tons of it that way. Make it at least two for god's sake people.

Grappling kind of got nerfed pretty damn hard and will require some rewrites to some class abilities (like Barbarian advantage on STR checks) if it's to retain much utility.

Quite a bold "first step".


----------



## CleverNickName

DarkCrisis said:


> We who were around for 3.5 remember.  WotC: "Its not a new edition."  Yeah it basically was.
> 
> No one wants to have someone show up and be like "I'm using a 2014 Fighter with these 2014 Feats/weapons/whatever."



I was around when 3.5E was released; I stand by my previous statement.

EDIT:  Less so, now that I've taken the time to thoroughly dissect their FAQ.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

HammerMan said:


> Me too and it doesn’t negate surprise anymore




Gut feeling: surprise works differently.


----------



## Aldarc

Cadence said:


> That name strikes me as the absolute worst thing about it.



So a Critical Fail?

D&D Nat 1 








darjr said:


> That’s just the code name for the playtest. Isn’t it?



People thought the same thing about Meta and the Metaverse.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

“Soldiers learn Goblin” 

“why?”

 (Loads crossbow) “Soldiers learn goblin.”


----------



## HammerMan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Is it really worth arguing about semantics?



Not really.  Either we will see a bunch of campaigns personal con and store. Online and in person with overlap or we won’t. That really will make it an edition or not.  

Meanwhile we have to focus on getting as much 4e back into this game.  


I do wonder how casual players will see it though


----------



## TwoSix

DarkCrisis said:


> We who were around for 3.5 remember.  WotC: "Its not a new edition."  Yeah it basically was.
> 
> No one wants to have someone show up and be like "I'm using a 2014 Fighter with these 2014 Feats/weapons/whatever."



Why would I not want that?  It’s like 99% the same game.

Granted, I also had no problem using 3.0 material and 3.5 material together.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, the trouble with this sort of software comparison is that are are version changes in software from say, 8.0 to 8.3 which completely and totally change the software to the point where it's basically unrecognisable and gains dozens of huge features whilst losing some obscure but relied upon ones, and there are like 8.0 to 10.5 changes where the software is basically identical and indistinguishable (and yeah I'm thinking of software I actually work with).
> 
> So I would say your OS comparison is _actively unhelpful_.
> 
> Stick to edition comparisons, imho.
> 
> And this is a much bigger change, already, than 3E to 3.5E. It's all very well saying "Well 1E to 2E wasn't an edition change, really!", except that it was. As a matter of cold fact.
> 
> This is looking to be very similar to the 1E to 2E edition change. As predicted, I should say.
> 
> Lots of interesting stuff in here. Most of it is good. Some of it is a bit mediocre - Dragonborn kind of suck, for example, even if they scale slightly better. Common being from Sigil is absolutely wild/fascinating (was this ever lore before? If so I long forgot it), and puts Planescape at the centre of the multiverse in a very firm way.
> 
> Most of the Feat changes seem solid. The discount on buying magical items on Crafter is kind of funny and no doubt someone flipped their computer desk over it already, because they know it means magic items are going to be more buyable in 1D&D. Not many Feats which is a tad disappointing, hopefully they'll add some more.
> 
> Inspiration rules are the worst thing in there because they contain two instances of total boneheadedness. Firstly, you have to decide to use Inspiration before the roll. Wrong. Just outright wrong. They're doing things like changing 1/20 to reflect how groups play, but trying to get people to pre-declare Inspiration. No. You need to be able to decide after the roll. Also, they're falling into just old traps where they aren't realistic about how the game is played. People roll dice first and quickly, don't try and make them hem and haw before rolling dice, it slows the game down and is no fun. Secondly, you can only have one. Stupid. I can see limiting it to prevent hoarding, but that plus "u must declare b4 rolling" is pure bonehead - it'd be very easy to get a group full on Inspiration and having to waste tons of it that way. Make it at least two for god's sake people.
> 
> Grappling kind of got nerfed pretty damn hard and will require some rewrites to some class abilities (like Barbarian advantage on STR checks) if it's to retain much utility.
> 
> Quite a bold "first step".




I will totally vote in the survey that inspiration will be a reroll. Not advantage!


----------



## This Effin’ GM

This Effin’ GM said:


> “Soldiers learn Goblin”
> 
> “why?”
> 
> (Loads crossbow) “Soldiers learn goblin.”



“Ok but guards learn Dwarven.”

(Starts walking out of the command tent) “Dwarves are city problems. Soldiers learn Goblin.”


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Charlaquin said:


> What is an Ardling?


----------



## HammerMan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Gut feeling: surprise works differently.



It’s a status now


----------



## Demetrios1453

dave2008 said:


> Then say so in the survey? That is the point of a playtest!



I was literally about to say the same thing - this is all UA, so nothing is set in stone. If you see something you don't like, put it on the survey.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's matter on major biological or mystical differences, the Hill and Mountain Dwarves didn't have any, but the Deurgar do from the other Dwarves, so they would still be seperate, same with Ghostwise Halflings.



I mean, the only reason they don't have any biological or mystical differences is because in the many years between playtest and now, no one at WoTC spent any time even trying to think of one.

There is no reason they 'should' be innately similar (and their prior existence as separate subraces would suggest that they are not). Removing one or the other is as much an admission of ongoing creative laziness as it is any kind of rationalization of racial options. 

I'm not opposed to it per se, but an alternative approach would have been to just like..actually describe how they are different.


----------



## HammerMan

TwoSix said:


> Why would I not want that?  It’s like 99% the same game..



I mean we don’t know right. This is just race and background we have no idea how much will or won’t change. 

But this much overhaul on background feats and races tells me we MAY be able to get major changes


----------



## UngeheuerLich

HammerMan said:


> Not really.  Either we will see a bunch of campaigns personal con and store. Online and in person with overlap or we won’t. That really will make it an edition or not.
> 
> Meanwhile we have to focus on getting as much 4e back into this game.
> 
> 
> I do wonder how casual players will see it though




I won't support as much 4e as possible, but I will support much more 4e openly.
5e is already very much inspired by 4e. The new playtest is a way to gauge if we can now put things in without obfuscating them.
And I see a good beginning in the healer feat and the alert feat. Swapping initiative was a warlord ability IIRC and using hitdice to heal is getting closer to healing surges. I'd like healing word to work closer to that feat and just trigger a helaing surge (I mean hit die)...

Edit: why the hell is I and O so close...


----------



## Charlaquin

Ok, so… I LOVE this UA. I have a few nitpicks here and there, but overall, I’m thrilled with the direction this seems to be going in. Couple of subtle things I noticed:

• The wording on Long Rest in the rules glossary clears up the ambiguity about how much combat it takes to interrupt a long rest. Turns out, it’s any combat at all. Not sure this is any indication of what the intent of the original wording was, since “everyone plays it this way anyway” is explicitly the reason for nat 1s and 20s being automatic failures and successes on any d20 Test (not a fan of that term, but it does its job). But in that light it’s an unsurprising decision to change the wording the way they did in either case.
• One of the effects of being incapacitated is that you’re “surprised” which gives you disadvantage on your initiative roll. In light of the way False Appearance works post-MMotM and the changes to Bugbears’ ambusher trait, I’m calling it now: the pseudo-surprise-round is going away, surprise will now just impose disadvantage on initiative.
• A lot of stuff in the packet is capitalized that hasn’t typically been capitalized in 5e. Looks like they’re going to continue using natural-sounding terms in a technical way, but they’re at least going to use capitalization to indicate when a word is being used as rules jargon instead of its literal English meaning. Which is I think the best us technical language enjoyers could reasonably have hoped for in light of the goal of backwards compatibility.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

HammerMan said:


> I do wonder how casual players will see it though



Just tested that for you. 
I explained the different rule changes, the upcoming releases etc.

I'd say they probably understood about 30% of what I was saying.
And they cared for about 10% of it. 

The only question was: ''so I can keep my dice?''.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Kobold Stew said:


> (Really cool) There's now Common Sign Language, as a separate language.



Yeah I loved that, but then I was like, dammit too many NPCs might speak it! But yeah definitely good stuff.


----------



## HammerMan

UngeheuerLich said:


> I won't support as much 4e as possible, but I will support much more 4e openly.
> 5e is already very much inspired by 4e. The new playtest is a way to gauge of we can now put things in wothout obfuscating them.
> And I see a good beginning in the healer feat and the alert feat. Swapping initiative was a warlord ability IIRC and using hitdice to heal is getting closer to healing surges. I'd like healing word to work closer to that feat and just trigger a helaing surge (I mean hit die)...



Yup.  And just look at the format so easy to make out rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

HammerMan said:


> It’s a status now



Don't really see it. Only as a part of incapacitated. Maybe an oversight.
I alos mean not only the status, but also how it is resolved.


----------



## Cadence

So, I didn't do D&D next.  Do I understand right that all the best things will be cut anyway?

;-)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> • One of the effects of being incapacitated is that you’re “surprised” which gives you disadvantage on your initiative roll. In light of the way False Appearance works post-MMotM and the changes to Bugbears’ ambusher trait, I’m calling it now: the pseudo-surprise round is going away, surprise will now just impose disadvantage on initiative.



Let us all pray this is correct!


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, the trouble with this sort of software comparison is that are are version changes in software from say, 8.0 to 8.3 which completely and totally change the software to the point where it's basically unrecognisable and gains dozens of huge features whilst losing some obscure but relied upon ones, and there are like 8.0 to 10.5 changes where the software is basically identical and indistinguishable (and yeah I'm thinking of software I actually work with).
> 
> So I would say your OS comparison is _actively unhelpful_.
> 
> Stick to edition comparisons, imho.
> 
> And this is a much bigger change, already, than 3E to 3.5E. It's all very well saying "Well 1E to 2E wasn't an edition change, really!", except that it was. As a matter of cold fact.
> 
> This is looking to be very similar to the 1E to 2E edition change. As predicted, I should say.
> 
> Lots of interesting stuff in here. Most of it is good. Some of it is a bit mediocre - Dragonborn kind of suck, for example, even if they scale slightly better. Common being from Sigil is absolutely wild/fascinating (was this ever lore before? If so I long forgot it), and puts Planescape at the centre of the multiverse in a very firm way.
> 
> Most of the Feat changes seem solid. The discount on buying magical items on Crafter is kind of funny and no doubt someone flipped their computer desk over it already, because they know it means magic items are going to be more buyable in 1D&D. Not many Feats which is a tad disappointing, hopefully they'll add some more.
> 
> Inspiration rules are the worst thing in there because they contain two instances of total boneheadedness. Firstly, you have to decide to use Inspiration before the roll. Wrong. Just outright wrong. They're doing things like changing 1/20 to reflect how groups play, but trying to get people to pre-declare Inspiration. No. You need to be able to decide after the roll. Also, they're falling into just old traps where they aren't realistic about how the game is played. People roll dice first and quickly, don't try and make them hem and haw before rolling dice, it slows the game down and is no fun. Secondly, you can only have one. Stupid. I can see limiting it to prevent hoarding, but that plus "u must declare b4 rolling" is pure bonehead - it'd be very easy to get a group full on Inspiration and having to waste tons of it that way. Make it at least two for god's sake people.
> 
> Grappling kind of got nerfed pretty damn hard and will require some rewrites to some class abilities (like Barbarian advantage on STR checks) if it's to retain much utility.
> 
> Quite a bold "first step".



Grappling is hilariously bad. If you're going to roll against a static number (which you should, opposed rolls are cumbersome) it should be a sort of "passive save". We can call it a "defense".


----------



## UngeheuerLich

HammerMan said:


> Yup.  And just look at the format so easy to make out rules.



Oh yes. I think it takes the best of both worlds.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is looking to be very similar to the 1E to 2E edition change. As predicted, I should say.



I agree, but I just don't find it an issue worth discussing at this point. I am trying to extract my self from this debate. I made the mistake of wading in and now I need to find my way back to shore.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Most of the Feat changes seem solid. The discount on buying magical items on Crafter is kind of funny and no doubt someone flipped their computer desk over it already, because they know it means magic items are going to be more buyable in 1D&D. Not many Feats which is a tad disappointing, hopefully they'll add some more.



These were just level 1 feats IIRC. They said in the video that more feats will be coming.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Inspiration rules are the worst thing in there because they contain two instances of total boneheadedness. Firstly, you have to decide to use Inspiration before the roll. Wrong. Just outright wrong.



Tell them in the survey.  Don't care myself.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Grappling kind of got nerfed pretty damn hard and will require some rewrites to some class abilities (like Barbarian advantage on STR checks) if it's to retain much utility.



Well if you don't like, let them know.  I didn't have an issue with it, but then again my players never grapple!


Ruin Explorer said:


> Quite a bold "first step".



I do agree.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> So, I didn't do D&D next.  Do I understand right that all the best things will be cut anyway?
> 
> ;-)



Oh for sure.

Anything people are broadly agreeing is a smart and clever change, that's going to catch it in the face. Changes people are okay with but which are unsatisfying and don't seem quite right? They'll make it through to the final product.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Haplo781 said:


> Grappling is hilariously bad. If you're going to roll against a static number (which you should, opposed rolls are cumbersome) it should be a sort of "passive save". We can call it a "defense".



I don't understand. It now works exactly as it worked for monsters for 8 years now. Why is it bad?


----------



## Justice and Rule

Zaukrie said:


> I know it's more complicated than most 5e, but I kind of like the games that have gradual crit and failure, where more awesome stuff happens when you exceed the number by at least ten.... And vice versa when you more by a lot.




I mean, there is a game for that...






I like no bonuses for race? The bigger thing would be to make sure that the races are unique and interesting on their own if you are going to go that way. But there is something nice about optimization not being around choosing a specific race but maybe having a _background _that supplements what you want to do. Have a Dwarven Ranger, a Halfling Barbarian, etc, without having to worry about having suboptimal stats in a game where ASIs are not particularly common.

I'd say they might want to give some more options to the races themselves, but stuff like Tremorsense are absolutely the sort of cool thing you want to see.

But man... my Dragonborn, my boys...





Look at how they lamed out my boys. Seriously, I know they have a breath weapon, but you gotta give them something beyond their scales, WotC. Please. _Please_.


----------



## TwoSix

HammerMan said:


> I mean we don’t know right. This is just race and background we have no idea how much will or won’t change.
> 
> But this much overhaul on background feats and races tells me we MAY be able to get major changes



Sure, they could absolutely totally change things in future packets, no question. 

But personally the changes from this packet seem mostly like window dressing.  Right now, the product hasn’t tipped over into must buy territory because the changes aren’t interesting enough.  If the higher level feats change to the level some of the lower level ones are, then I’ll move into “probably get” territory.


----------



## rooneg

Ruin Explorer said:


> Most of the Feat changes seem solid. The discount on buying magical items on Crafter is kind of funny and no doubt someone flipped their computer desk over it already, because they know it means magic items are going to be more buyable in 1D&D.



Crafter’s discount is for non-magical, not magical.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oh for sure.
> 
> Anything people are broadly agreeing is a smart and clever change, that's going to catch it in the face. Changes people are okay with but which are unsatisfying and don't seem quite right? They'll make it through to the final product.




That sounds totally correct... at least looking at how the game drove away all its audience...


----------



## plisnithus8

Cadence said:


> That name strikes me as the absolute worst thing about it.



Isn't the name likely just a placeholder like D&D Next?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

rooneg said:


> Crafter’s discount is for non-magical, not magical.



Reading is not my strongest point.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

plisnithus8 said:


> Isn't the name likely just a placeholder like D&D Next?



I mean let's hope. Maybe this tells you about how much we studied WW2 in history but when I saw "One D&D" I immediately though "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!", and a lot of right-wing parties worldwide like "One X" messaging ("One Nation" Tories in the UK for example). Whatever, that's probably just me, but it's definitely a bad name. whereas even DNDNext was an okay name.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oh for sure.
> 
> Anything people are broadly agreeing is a smart and clever change, that's going to catch it in the face. Changes people are okay with but which are unsatisfying and don't seem quite right? They'll make it through to the final product.



I do wonder about this playtest. The Next playtest had like 100-150K playtest IIRC. I imagine this could have a lot more.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ruin Explorer said:


> "One D&D" I immediately though "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!"




This is totally on you...


----------



## SkidAce

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's pronounced closer to Awesomer, and not Ass-i-mar.



Ay - zi - mar.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean let's hope. Maybe this tells you about how much we studied WW2 in history but when I saw "One D&D" I immediately though "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!", and a lot of right-wing parties worldwide like "One X" messaging ("One Nation" Tories in the UK for example). Whatever, that's probably just me, but it's definitely a bad name. whereas even DNDNext was an okay name.



Oh god…I hadn’t seen that, but now I can’t unsee it.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean let's hope. Maybe this tells you about how much we studied WW2 in history but when I saw "One D&D" I immediately though "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!", and a lot of right-wing parties worldwide like "One X" messaging ("One Nation" Tories in the UK for example). Whatever, that's probably just me, but it's definitely a bad name. whereas even DNDNext was an okay name.



It will just be called Dungeons and Dragons.  In one of the videos they said their will be no more editions, just revisions to the 5e ruleset, and it is all Dungeons and Dragons from now on.


----------



## Bagpuss

*Lucky *- Choose to gain advantage, or force disadvantage after you've seen the result of the roll seems a little strong. Strikes me as a feat everyone is going to get.

*Musician *seems similarly powerful for handing out Advantage.

*Savage Attacker* looks like another must have for none casters.

*Magic Initiate* - "Whenever  you gain a new level, you can replace one of the Spells you chose for this Feat with a different Spell of the same level from the chosen Spell list." - Glad this is a playtest... same as what level? The level I gained as a character, so at 3rd level I can swap my 0-level Cantrip for Fireball? Bit of clarity please.

Really not sure about the feats, some seem OP compared to others.

*Slowed Condition *implies movement is tracked in individual feat, rather than 5ft increments, not sure why they would decide to do that.

*Critical Hits* - looks like roll to attack spell no longer Critical, unless they are being classed as Weapons now. Not sure the reason for the change, perhaps they are trying to redress the balance between martials and magic users... haha who am I kidding.

*Skill Rolls* now fail on a natural 1, and succeed on a natural 20.  r/dndmemes will have to think of something new.

*Short Rest* - The mechanic seems to exist but isn't detailed.

*Orcs *- All orcs were the creation of Gruumsh, the One Eyed God, regardless of the gods of the setting? Seems an odd choice when you have the ...of Many Worlds, for each Race (they stuck with the word race, I'm pleasantly surprised).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> Oh god…I hadn’t seen that, but now I can’t unsee it.



Sorry! Literally the first thing I thought!


----------



## Charlaquin

Kobold Stew said:


> Quick observations:
> 
> All feats are fair game as background feats. Anyone can start with Find Familiar now, if they want.



All 1st level feats, that is. Which is a nice solution to the hypothetical problem of the “everyone gets a Feat at 1st level” rule leading to everyone taking the usual OP Feats and leaving the flavorful ones to languish. Calling it now: Feats will no longer be optional, but +2 to one ability score or +1 to two ability scores will be a repeatable 4th level Feat.


Kobold Stew said:


> Anyone can learn Thieves Cant.



Druidic too.


Kobold Stew said:


> (Really cool) There's now Common Sign Language, as a separate language.



Neat, though I wish other languages had signed equivalents as well.


Kobold Stew said:


> 1 language, 1 tool (not 2 and zero)



From background. Note that you also get one choice of language independent from your background, which means all PCs will be trilingual at minimum.


Kobold Stew said:


> feats slightly re-written. e. g. Lucky was made STRONGER!?! (it's now prof bonus number of luck points)



Well, weaker until 5th level, then equivalent until 9th. Considering most campaigns end by 10th level or so, this is probably a net nerf overall, with the potential to become a late-game buff. Seems like a good call to me. A little surprised it’s a 1st level feat though.


Kobold Stew said:


> Primal/Arcane/Divine spells now codified with selected spell lists (no post PHB spells?)



In the video, Jeremy Crawford explains that in the 2024 edition, every spell will be tagged as Arcane, Divine, or Primal (and in some cases more than one of the above). He also hinted that classes might grant access to spells in other ways that just the general power source lists.


Kobold Stew said:


> you no longer get a purse to hold your starting gold.



Probably an oversight. Or maybe they’ve decided that, much like it’s assumed that weapons come with an appropriate scabbard or other container, it will be assumed that everyone has a purse for their coins?


----------



## Cadence

dave2008 said:


> It will just be called Dungeons and Dragons.  In one of the videos they said their will be no more editions, just revisions to the 5e ruleset, and it is all Dungeons and Dragons from now on.



That feels like it will end up being painful down the road, so I'm wondering how long that will last.

(I'm picturing my son trying to buy Minecraft books that don't say which version...)


----------



## SkidAce

TwoSix said:


> Oh I know, it's just that half-elves, especially, were always kind of defined by having their own mechanical niche, going back to have special MC options back in 1e.  Then they got fun stuff like Paragon Surge in PF1, and Versatile Master in 4e.  Having them now just be a reskin option feels odd.
> 
> I'm not complaining, just a different approach to get used to.



I had an entire campaign built around the premise that "Half-elves" were actually a throwback to an elder race that split into elves and humans.  It explained (in game lore) why half-elves were so versatile mechanically.

Ahhh the old days....


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Probably an oversight. Or maybe they’ve decided that, much like it’s assumed that weapons come with an appropriate scabbard or other container, it will be assumed that everyone has a purse for their coins?




Since most of the players won't ever use money in their real lives... what's the magical version of a credit card?


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> First Level (UA) Feat Ranking:
> *Top Tier*: Lucky, Alert, Magic Initiate
> *Middle Tier*: Healer, Tavern Brawler, Tough, Musician
> *Bottom Tier*: Skilled, Savage Attacker, Crafter



I mostly agree, though I think Skilled could prove pretty strong. A human with Skilled as their 1st level Feat will start with 6 skills _before_ any granted from class! Humans will be incredible skill monkeys.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bagpuss said:


> *Savage Attacker* looks like another must have for none casters.



Absolutely not.

A bad Feat got nerfed to be a terrible Feat. Right now, it's a 1/turn reroll and use either, and it's a bad Feat.

They made it so it's 1/turn AND only if you take the Attack Action, so you can't use it on Opportunity Attacks, can't use it on Bonus Action attacks, and so on. Terrible.


Bagpuss said:


> *Short Rest* - The mechanic seems to exist but isn't detailed.



Yeah they mention it at least once, but weirdly neither it nor Long Rest are asterisked when they do (where Long Rest has an asterisk in all other appearances), and don't detail it. Safe to say it probably changed, but not to what (though I'll be shocked if it's not 5 or 10 minutes now).

Most surprising thing here was that Long Rest still heals you to full and still fills half your HD. Was really expecting the default to decrease there.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Cadence said:


> That feels like it will end up being painful down the road, so I'm wondering how long that will last.
> 
> (I'm picturing my son trying to buy Minecraft books that don't say which version...)



The sudden realization that much like 7 Days to Die, the last eight years have been Early Release.


----------



## Justice and Rule

This Effin’ GM said:


> “Soldiers learn Goblin”
> 
> “why?”
> 
> (Loads crossbow) “Soldiers learn goblin.”




Goblins are just really common in the army for the enlistment bonus. You know how much slang in the Imperial army is Goblinese? A whole lot, let me tell you.



Also these feats look, overall, a lot better. _Alert_ stands out as being immediately more interesting than its predecessor and now allows you to be helpful for your team. Also using Proficiency bonus as allowing the Feat to advance is going to be a thing and that's good. It's something I did with Heavy Armor Master long ago, where it was 1+Proficiency Bonus.

Thinking about it more, less criticals is going to have an effect on minion hordes. A whole bunch of guys is likely to be a bit less effective now that they can't critical you... which I think is not a bad thing. I doubt we are going to be getting a bunch of low-level dudes with rechargeables, but maybe they'll find other ways of making them interesting without resorting just boosting damage. Also makes stuff that gives advantage to horde-ish foes less of a problem since you are going to get fewer damage spikes from crits.


----------



## felopez

Kurotowa said:


> I'm going to lay a long term bet on something we'll see when the Classes UA comes out in a month or two.
> 
> Two things struck me about the new crit scheme. One is that crits are smaller; limited to only PCs, only weapon users, and only double the weapon die. The other is that in talking about why they took crits away from monsters, he said they were emphasizing recharge abilities, that have the burst damage potential of crits and retain some uncertainty but are triggered at the DM's choosing and aren't as wildly unpredictable (and likely to gib low level characters).
> 
> So what if the new model is that PCs get burst damage capabilities that aren't tied to crits? Which spellcasters already have, really, when they choose to break out their high level spell slots. But what if this means that martial classes are going to get more impactful burst damage class features? Something that lets them break out the big guns for dramatic moments without having to crit fish.
> 
> Anyway, that's my crazy prediction.



That's just 4e martial powers, which I'm completely in favor of returning to.


----------



## jasper

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think it is because a crit can kill a 1st or 2nd level character in a very unintuitive way



I have over 362 Adventure League sessions under my belt. Twice I have Critical a 1st level pc which would have killed the pc. I Just hand waved away.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> I mostly agree, though I think Skilled could prove pretty strong. A human with Skilled as their 1st level Feat will start with 6 skills _before_ any granted from class! Humans will be incredible skill monkeys.



Being a skill monkey is not very helpful in 5E because so many skills come off INT/WIS/CHA and odds are, either none or one of those is high for any given character. If you have Skill Proficiencies but not the stats to back them up all you achieve is mildly irritating other players by slightly more often beating their specialised characters at rolls than the Barbarian rolling naked.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Justice and Rule said:


> Thinking about it more, less criticals is going to have an effect on minion hordes. A whole bunch of guys is likely to be a bit less effective now that they can't critical you... which I think is not a bad thing. I doubt we are going to be getting a bunch of low-level dudes with rechargeables, but maybe they'll find other ways of making them interesting without resorting just boosting damage. Also makes stuff that gives advantage to horde-ish foes less of a problem since you are going to get fewer damage spikes from crits.



If they're making any kind of effort to make encounter design easier or better, removing criticals from monsters would be a good move, frankly, yeah.


----------



## Cadence

So, is the Ardling a brand new thing and not in the OGL anywhere?

(If so, I'm kind of surprised there isn't some TM thing lurking around it).


----------



## Haplo781

I'm wondering if any spells will get a Psionic tag.


----------



## rooneg

Bagpuss said:


> *Lucky *- Choose to gain advantage, or force disadvantage after you've seen the result of the roll seems a little strong. Strikes me as a feat everyone is going to get.



The disadvantage is before you see the result of the roll, not after. The wording is different for the two options.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> I'm wondering if any spells will get a Psionic tag.



It feels like that will immediately cheese off 40-60% of everyone who wants psionics  in the game (as a lot are firmly "psionics aren't spells").


----------



## Charlaquin

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Aasimars seemingly still exist as they're depicted in MotM, they're just being more explicitly themed as "angel planetouched" - which they pretty much have always been in 5E, to be honest - while Ardlings are picking up the less human-looking "hound archon, guardinal, asuras, etc." type celestials.



Ardlings are currently my least-favorite part of the UA. I just don’t get them. Feels like they wanted a general anthro race in the PHB and also wanted an upper-planes counterpart to Tieflings in the PHB and used the existence of animal-like celestials to try to justify killing both birds with one stone. But the end result feels incohesive to me. Why does my catgirl character have the ability to grow wings? Something, something, upper planes. Meh. Just put Aasimar in and make a new general anthro race.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> It feels like that will immediately cheese off 40-60% of everyone who wants psionics  in the game (as a lot are firmly "psionics aren't spells").



As opposed to being cheesed off that psionics effectively don't exist?


----------



## Zaukrie

I like that everyone gets a feat at level 1. I'd like even more choices. I like my pcs to feel unique more.....


----------



## Cruentus

So , the only way to get the materials is to register on DnD Beyond, and the only way to create an account is to use your google or apple account?  Am I missing something?


----------



## Haplo781

Zaukrie said:


> I like that everyone gets a feat at level 1. I'd like even more choices. I like my pcs to feel unique more.....



Maybe a feat at levels that end with 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 0?


----------



## Li Shenron

Wow! So many dealbreakers for me

This is actually the first good news about the new edition. I am starting to consider I should fake flying colours on my feedback to lessen the chances of having them pull it back to a version that could make me undecided again


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> Tremorsense and other things....seem kind of backgroundy to me. Some of the cantrips also. I'm clearly not in the majority here, but I'm unsure yet how I feel about the various racial traits.



I’m not sure what you mean by that?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> Ardlings are currently my least-favorite part of the UA. I just don’t get them. Feels like they wanted a general anthro race in the PHB and also wanted an upper-planes counterpart to Tieflings in the PHB and used the existence of animal-like celestials to try to justify killing both birds with one stone. But the end result feels incohesive to me. Why does my catgirl character have the ability to grow wings? Something, something, upper planes. Meh. Just put Aasimar in and make a new general anthro race.



I mean, I totally get where you're coming from, but like, the sort of people who want a rando anthro are definitely going to be pretty okay with the "angelic wings" deal, because it fits with so much of that stuff. Especially the catgirl types.

So I think this is a stroke of evil genius myself. As soon as they said Ardling my brain said "Here comes some kind of planar Furry...".


----------



## cbwjm

dave2008 said:


> Then say so in the survey? That is the point of a playtest!



But the surveys are so long! And honestly, I don't feel that strongly about it.


----------



## Retreater

Just got through the video. 
You have to use Inspiration now. It's tied to feats and racial powers. 
You have to do Initiative the way they say.  It's also tied to a feat. 
But the worst. The absolute worst. Monsters can't crit. Damage is a static, predictable number. 
Do these designers even play the darn game?


----------



## Medic

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean let's hope. Maybe this tells you about how much we studied WW2 in history but when I saw "One D&D" I immediately though "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!", and a lot of right-wing parties worldwide like "One X" messaging ("One Nation" Tories in the UK for example). Whatever, that's probably just me, but it's definitely a bad name. whereas even DNDNext was an okay name.



It's a perfectly reasonable connection to make. "D&D One" is a name that could accidentally convey an idea of "This is the ONLY D&D! D&Deviants will not be tolerated!"


----------



## Charlaquin

cbwjm said:


> I skimmed past dragonborn because I thought they were the same, not sure how I feel about this change and think I prefer the replace an attack version of Fizban's. I really don't think they need to Revise dragonborn again.



Does the Fizban’s version have Darkvision? If not, I disagree that they don’t need to be revised again.


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by that?



I am not sure how to "fix" it at all.....but here and in Level Up, I feel like some of hte things that are racial traits should really be in backgrounds. It isn't a big deal at all, and really doesn't change much once the game starts, frankly.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> As opposed to being cheesed off that psionics effectively don't exist?



This is an opportunity to fix that issue, so yeah, they will be cheesed off if WotC actively decides not to fix the issue by simply making some spells "Psionic", especially if this is "Forever D&D" as they imply. If you can delete races that have been in the PHB since the 1980s, add Angel-Furs, and so on, you can put in a Mystic/Psion class, frankly.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> the thing is this is an elf or human reskinned... for the last 30 years at least half elf has NOT been just a human or elf that looks different but a distinctive choice... and again for something that promise "We are only adding new things not taking things away" they have taken away half orc and half elf...



I did think they would drop half elf/Orc, but didn't think they would go with the more custom alternative...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Leatherhead said:


> The Video goes over some interesting points:
> Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts and a level 1 feat.
> Feats are now separated into levels, level 1 feats don't have stats, higher level feats can have a +1 bonus for a stat in order to soften the blow of having to pick between ASIs and a Feat.
> Crits are a player only thing, with spells not being able to crit, effectively Martial only.
> The spell lists are going to be split up into Arcane, Divine, and Primal. Classes will pick one of the lists and have additional spells added to their lists.
> Races are going to get new options.
> Inspiration is going to be reworked so that the DM doesn't have to remember it all the time.



And I’m probably out. 

Guess I was wrong, and they’re going to make a whole new game. Again. 

Absolute lunacy.


----------



## Haplo781

My question re: Ardlings is, why make another giod-aligned planetouched rather than go for the obvious neutral-aligned?

Mechanus, Limbo, and the Outlands don't have any representation right now.


----------



## Bagpuss

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> A bad Feat got nerfed to be a terrible Feat. Right now, it's a 1/turn reroll and use either, and it's a bad Feat.
> 
> They made it so it's 1/turn AND only if you take the Attack Action, so you can't use it on Opportunity Attacks, can't use it on Bonus Action attacks, and so on. Terrible.




It's always been once a turn. They have expanded it beyond just melee weapons now as well. Still anything that reduces randomness is useful. Admittedly this isn't a nice a Lucky, but it does seem there will be opportunities to gain feats beyond your Background.


----------



## overgeeked

Cruentus said:


> So , the only way to get the materials is to register on DnD Beyond, and the only way to create an account is to use your google or apple account?  Am I missing something?



Nope.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bagpuss said:


> It's always been once a turn. They have expanded it beyond just melee weapons now as well. Still anything that reduces randomness is useful. Admittedly this isn't a nice a Lucky, but it does seem there will be opportunities to gain feats beyond your Background.



It's widely and correctly regarded as a terrible Feat right now. Expanding it beyond melee weapons would be nice if they didn't hugely limit it by making it require you to take the Attack Action, which makes it a far worse Feat than it already was. The math is not complex. It's bad. It's really bad, and they overall made it worse.

You called it a must-have. It's more like a "mustn't have".


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> My question re: Ardlings is, why make another giod-aligned planetouched rather than go for the obvious neutral-aligned?



Because D&D is dumb and has never properly characterised the Neutral planes beyond a loose mechanical theme?


----------



## dave2008

Retreater said:


> Just got through the video.
> You have to use Inspiration now. It's tied to feats and racial powers.
> You have to do Initiative the way they say.  It's also tied to a feat.
> But the worst. The absolute worst. Monsters can't crit. Damage is a static, predictable number.
> Do these designers even play the darn game?



Yes, these are wonderful changes for many people. Not necessarily for me, but I'm ok with that. However, this a playtest. Let them know what you think. A lot changed in the Next playtest, so it could happen here to.

Plus you got some things wrong in your list up there.


----------



## plisnithus8

Retreater said:


> Just got through the video.
> You have to use Inspiration now. It's tied to feats and racial powers.
> You have to do Initiative the way they say.  It's also tied to a feat.
> But the worst. The absolute worst. Monsters can't crit. Damage is a static, predictable number.
> Do these designers even play the darn game?



Yes, the designers do play; they often stream games. 
It seems not everyone's (feelings for the) game is the same as yours. 

Monster damage can be definitive or it can be within a range; including crits only increases the range of predictability.


----------



## Cadence

Has Draconic been portrayed as instinctual before?  None of the other races came with a language unless I missed one (which makes sense if it's just genetics and the like).

Anyway, at some point I want a graph of (character languages - player languages) by country of player.

---

Is needing to say the Forgewise was a gift from their creator a sign that they the designers felt that it didn't seem as natural of a fit for an untrained skill as what the other races got?   (Some of the others have it mentioned in the general description that they think it came from their god, but not where the power itself is described).

The Dwarvish god has different names on different worlds - the Elvish and Orcish one doesn't. The Gnomes and Halflings have several gods listed.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> Don't really see it. Only as a part of incapacitated. Maybe an oversight.
> I alos mean not only the status, but also how it is resolved.



I don’t think Surprised going to be A Thing. I think imposing disadvantage on initiative rolls will just be the standard mechanic for expressing that a creature was unprepared to be in combat.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> Nope.



Wow really? That blows. I can still use my Twitch account but I guess that's grandfathered.

I did predict (repeatedly lol) that WotC would lock playtest materials for this edition behind Beyond access, but I assumed Beyond didn't require to use such personal accounts.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> As opposed to being cheesed off that psionics effectively don't exist?



I'm just reporting how the threads on it have seemed to go...   

Iirc a variety of folks would rather no WotC psionics than spell psioncs.  (I kind of like the Occult flavoring instead, and am interested to see what A5e does in their outerspace book).


----------



## MarkB

Unintended consequence: The character with the Crafter feat will quickly find themselves becoming the Party Shopper, sent out to make any and all purchases for the group, from getting a round in at the tavern to purchasing huge tracts of land.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> Has Draconic been portrayed as instinctual before?  None of the other races came with a language unless I missed one (which makes sense if it's just genetics and the like).



I want to say it has been, but I can't like find an exact reference. But I was thinking about some flavour text a couple of weeks ago from something that implied it was. Like, a creature that scares people, but it doesn't if you speak Draconic or something. That sort of implied it was different to other languages (and the creature might not even have been sentient). Might be something in MotM.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> I'm just reporting how the threads on it have seemed to go...
> 
> Iirc a variety of folks would rather no WotC psionics than spell psioncs.  (I kind of like the Occult flavoring instead, and am interested to see what A5e does in their outerspace book).



Those people can choose to not use it then.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> So, I didn't do D&D next.  Do I understand right that all the best things will be cut anyway?
> 
> ;-)



I don’t think so. As JC alluded to in the video, the D&D Next packets were vertical slices of a completely new ruleset, which we were given large chunks of time to playtest, ruminate on, and argue about in the forums before any surveys went out. This looks to be packets of what almost look like house rules to a particular element of the existing rules, which we will be shown and asked to give our impressions on after only a few weeks. This says to me that they already know what they want the rules to look like, and are just running them by us to do a quick vibe-check and make sure the community isn’t strongly opppsed to. Of this packet, I would bet on the changes to critical hits not making it to the final printing, but otherwise I think this is all seems very likely to stick.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

overgeeked said:


> Is this the first instance of sign language in D&D? That's cool.



There was a deaf child NPC in Dragon Heist who used a sign language she had invented to talk to her friends.


----------



## Zaukrie

MarkB said:


> Unintended consequence: The character with the Crafter feat will quickly find themselves becoming the Party Shopper, sent out to make any and all purchases for the group, from getting a round in at the tavern to purchasing huge tracts of land.



How much does this matter in most games? I don't know, but if you clear out a few dungeons, you have more gold than you know what to do with, IME.


----------



## SkidAce

DarkCrisis said:


> We who were around for 3.5 remember.  WotC: "Its not a new edition."  Yeah it basically was.
> 
> No one wants to have someone show up and be like "I'm using a 2014 Fighter with these 2014 Feats/weapons/whatever."



We remember.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't understand. It now works exactly as it worked for monsters for 8 years now. Why is it bad?



Well, it’s bad in the sense that it’s less likely to be an effective tactic for PCs to use now. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so, but others might.


----------



## Retreater

dave2008 said:


> Plus you got some things wrong in your list up there.



Not sure what you're referring too since I just finished the video and posted about 5 minutes later - I don't think my memory is that bad (yet). 


plisnithus8 said:


> Monster damage can be definitive or it can be within a range; including crits only increases the range of predictability.



Well he talks about recharge for dragons breath as a special attack. But that a bugbear with a club just shouldn't have a scary or exciting feature, just a standard 12 damage every time. Unless every monster gets a recharge/encounter ability - which could be cool. 
But man, this isn't looking like my teacup the more I'm learning.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. They can't honestly think two weeks is sufficient time to actually playtest these things. Either that or they've already decided and the "survey" is just PR smoke and mirrors.



Well, not really. They don’t need extensive play feedback, they need to know if the community will reject any of it out of hand, what people immediately glom onto, and what people don’t really understand at first glance. 

Well, that assumes rational behavior of course. 

The changes mentioned so far…don’t, IMO.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> except for stats... and spell lists... and backgrounds...and feats. Other then that yup 20114phb all the way



Crawford was at pains to point out in the video that they expect people to playtestvthese Race and Vackground options with 2014 Classes and Subclasses. These are new modules in the same framework.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ancalagon said:


> I really, really don't like the stat bonuses being tied to backgrounds.  This is, in my opinion, a _serious_ mistake.
> 
> There was this ... discomfort, this tension, with stat bonuses and class.  If you played a "dex class" but your race was dwarf, you were at a bit of a disadvantage for example, because you didn't get to boost your main stat.
> 
> Shifting the stat bonuses to the background just re-creates the same problem in another place.  I want to play a cleric, but I didn't grow in a temple, I was a criminal before my PC "found god"?  well, that's a wisdom bonus I'm not getting.
> 
> so instead of race choice being somewhat constrained, now backgrounds are.  There was an opportunity to fix this problem, and instead WotC just moved it around.
> 
> edit:  also why are specific languages tied to specific background?  If you were a guard you knew dwarf?  Why?




The default is that you make your own background. All this means is that you have to explain how you got so strong/smart/witty/whatever without it being genetic.


----------



## CleverNickName

Well pbbbth.  I finally got a free moment at work, and decided to unpack this "ONE D&D" topic myself, before I had gotten too swept up in all of the hype and emotion.  And I'm gonna have to walk back my previous post about this not being a "new edition of the game."

First, some required reading (my footnotes in orange):  



Spoiler: From the D&D Beyond FAQ Page



*What is One D&D?*

One D&D is the code name for the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons, bringing together three initiatives that will shape the future of the game:

*D&D Rules.* This takes what we love about fifth edition and updates the rules of the game to reflect the feedback we have heard from players and where the game is today.*[1]*
*D&D Beyond.* This will be the platform for your digital D&D collection, content, and tools.*[2]*
*D&D Digital Play Experience.* In early development, D&D Digital will offer an immersive player experience, rich creation tools for Dungeon Masters, and a connected space for DMs and players to get together and play D&D.*[3]*
Our goal is to give you more D&D wherever you play, whenever you want.

*Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?*

It’s bigger than that. *[4]*  One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements*[5, 6]* and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.

*What does backward compatible mean?*

It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D.*[5,6]* For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.

*What is changing with the One D&D rules?*

There will be many fundamental updates to D&D that we will collect your feedback on.*[7]*  In the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest content, you’ll see proposed updates to character backgrounds, races, classes, feats, information presentation, and more. Ultimately, the answer to what will change depends on what we hear from you throughout One D&D playtests.

*When will the One D&D rules be released?*

The new core rulebooks are expected to be released in 2024.*[6]

Where can I find out more and stay up to date on the latest One D&D news?*

To keep up to date on One D&D, sign up for D&D Beyond. Then, hop into your account settings and update your email preferences to receive communications from D&D Beyond. You can expect news on One D&D roughly monthly*[8]*.



So having read through all of that, slowly and carefully, with a keen eye on not just _what they were saying_ but also _how they were saying it_, and _what they were careful not to say_, I have the following take-aways.

1.  They are going to collect some feedback, and then update the 5th Edition rules.  They very carefully dodge the question about whether or not it's a new edition--either because they haven't decided yet, or they don't want to make peoples' heads explode.

2.  Weird statement about D&D Beyond being "the platform for your digital D&D."  This isn't news; D&D Beyond has been around for ages.  I wonder why they mentioned it here, in this FAQ about One D&D?

3.  They mention something called "D&D Digital," and from the description they give, it reads like a VTT program like Roll20 or Foundry.  Now I'm starting to understand why they mentioned D&D Beyond in point #2, above.

4.  They asked themselves a yes-or-no question, and then didn't answer it.  It really drives me crazy when people do that!  Anyway, they will neither confirm nor deny that this is a new edition of the game.  In fact they carefully avoid it altoghter, talking about "new versions," "many updates," "the next generation," and "evolution" instead.

5.  They dodge and deflect the question about a 'new edition,' then go on to talk about backwards-compatibility--something that wouldn't need to be discussed at all if this wasn't a new edition.  They confirm that "fifth edition adventures and supplements" will be compatible, and give a specific example with the Curse of Strahd adventure. 

6.  They don't say the same for the core rulebooks, though.  Instead, they confirm that there will be new versions of the core rulebooks, and they are expected to be released in 2024.

7.  Now they finally confirm that the rules are changing.  And they will be collecting feedback on these changes in upcoming Unearthed Arcana content.  It sounds like they already have some UAs written for backgrounds, races, classes, feats, and something called 'information presentation,' and there will be more to come.  As for how broad these changes are going to be, they tell us that it will depend on what they hear "throughout One D&D playtests."

8.  There will be monthly updates.  Also, an active D&D Beyond account is required.  This suggests that the materials will be distributed through DDB, and it's likely that from all of the talk about "your digital D&D" that the playtests and feedback will be managed on DDB as well.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> *Short Rest* - The mechanic seems to exist but isn't detailed.



Presumably because it hasn’t been changed.


----------



## SkidAce

Demetrios1453 said:


> I was literally about to say the same thing - this is all UA, so nothing is set in stone. If you see something you don't like, put it on the survey.



I feel a slight twinge of concern.

If its not set in stone (and it shouldn't be) and something significant changes due to feedback, how will this affect all five of the books being published in 2023?

Push back their development?  They certainly can't be designed "feedback proof" could they?


----------



## Kurotowa

Justice and Rule said:


> Goblins are just really common in the army for the enlistment bonus. You know how much slang in the Imperial army is Goblinese? A whole lot, let me tell you.



If folks would read the example flavor text for Soldier, it does actually explain it. "Eventually, you put that training to use on the battlefield, protecting the realm by waging war and studying the strategies of goblinoid generals."

You're not just a common infantry grunt, you're reading the war manuals of the great theorists. And the equivalent to Clausewitz's _On War_ or Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_ was written by a hobgoblin. Which you, dedicated war nerd that you are, learned to read in the original tongue.

The example Background are just that. Examples. They're not flavor neutral, they're specific examples of what a character would look like that had that package of ASI, proficiencies, and starting feat.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> We do not know that these are all the races that will be available for the entirety of the playtest. It's jumping the gun just a little, tiny bit to say that since half-orcs and half-elves aren't in this very first playtest doc on the very first day that therefore they are gone from D&D.



They made it quite clear in the video and the document that half-eaces are gone.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I find it bizarre that they could recognize that virtually everyone house ruled (or at least soft house-ruled) nat 20s and 1s as auto-success or failure outside of combat, bend to that common will, and yet still bizarrely think they can make monster crits on 20s disappear.

But for me the potential dealbreaker is not the above, easily houseruleable thing, but the dark thing lurking on the horizon of probably eliminating class specific spell lists. Dammit WotC, I don't have time to make my own class spell lists. That's the sort of content I need you for.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I totally get where you're coming from, but like, the sort of people who want a rando anthro are definitely going to be pretty okay with the "angelic wings" deal, because it fits with so much of that stuff. Especially the catgirl types.
> 
> So I think this is a stroke of evil genius myself. As soon as they said Ardling my brain said "Here comes some kind of planar Furry...".



This. I mean I have no interest at all in playing the Ardling but it utterly _nails_ a couple of fantasy characters I've seen newbies want to play. It's not my thing and that's completely fine. It is some other peoples' thing and creates characters that are very hard to play in any other way. So I consider "the pretty anthro celestial furry race" to be a good addition to the game. Not my kink but it is plenty of peoples'.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

DarkCrisis said:


> No one wants to have someone show up and be like "I'm using a 2014 Fighter with these 2014 Feats/weapons/whatever."



I mean, it wouldn’t be hard to design the new books to make that not a problem at all. 

But they have decided that actual backward compatibility doesn’t matter, apperently.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Crawford was at pains to point out in the video that they expect people to playtestvthese Race and Vackground options with 2014 Classes and Subclasses. These are new modules in the same framework.



Yeah, but don't expect 2014 Classes and subclasses to remain unchanged. Right at the end of the video they make it clear they're going to do UAs that "drill down" into specific subjects, and among the examples are individual classes.

So we could potentially see some very significant reconfigurations of classes, because it's not like the old stuff will be "incompatible". If they rejig Monk, completely, the old Monk and old subclasses will still work with 1D&D, just not with 1D&D's version of the Monk, but that's still backwards-compatible (and it really is - I work with software that does stuff like that).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Benjamin Olson said:


> I find it bizarre that they could recognize that virtually everyone house ruled (or at least soft house-ruled) nat 20s and 1s as auto-success or failure outside of combat, bend to that common will, and yet still bizarrely think they can make monster crits on 20s disappear.
> 
> But for me the potential dealbreaker is not the above, easily houseruleable thing, but the dark thing lurking on the horizon of probably eliminating class specific spell lists. Dammit WotC, I don't have time to make my own class spell lists. That's the sort of content I need you for.



I think classes and subclasses are still going to pretty often add spells for that class/subclass, and these lists will represent the baseline, so it might not be too awful.


----------



## Haplo781

Benjamin Olson said:


> I find it bizarre that they could recognize that virtually everyone house ruled (or at least soft house-ruled) nat 20s and 1s as auto-success or failure outside of combat, bend to that common will, and yet still bizarrely think they can make monster crits on 20s disappear.
> 
> But for me the potential dealbreaker is not the above, easily houseruleable thing, but the dark thing lurking on the horizon of probably eliminating class specific spell lists. Dammit WotC, I don't have time to make my own class spell lists. That's the sort of content I need you for.



I don't get any indication that class lists are going anywhere. Just that every spell will have an additional tag.


----------



## Cadence

Kurotowa said:


> You're not just a common infantry grunt, you're reading the war manuals of the great theorists. And the equivalent to Clausewitz's _On War_ or Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_ was written by a hobgoblin. Which you, dedicated war nerd that you are, learned to read in the original tongue.




This is one of those backgrounds that seems great for a game starting at 3rd level, but just feels off for first level in 5e.  (Same for Gladiator).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Just tested that for you.
> I explained the different rule changes, the upcoming releases etc.
> 
> I'd say they probably understood about 30% of what I was saying.
> And they cared for about 10% of it.
> 
> The only question was: ''so I can keep my dice?''.



My casual players are only going to care if they have to remake their characters, and relearn the game. 

And if the answer is yes, they’re out. Period.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> A bad Feat got nerfed to be a terrible Feat. Right now, it's a 1/turn reroll and use either, and it's a bad Feat.
> 
> They made it so it's 1/turn AND only if you take the Attack Action, so you can't use it on Opportunity Attacks, can't use it on Bonus Action attacks, and so on. Terrible.
> 
> Yeah they mention it at least once, but weirdly neither it nor Long Rest are asterisked when they do (where Long Rest has an asterisk in all other appearances), and don't detail it. Safe to say it probably changed, but not to what (though I'll be shocked if it's not 5 or 10 minutes now).
> 
> Most surprising thing here was that Long Rest still heals you to full and still fills half your HD. Was really expecting the default to decrease there.



It seems the only changes to long rest are that it is now explicitly interrupted by any amount of combat (might or might not be a functional change depending on how your DM interpreted the original wording) and that you gain the benefits of a short rest if your long rest is interrupted after an hour or longer (though this is definitely a functional change, it’s probably one we can safely file under “making it work the way everyone was running it anyway.”)


----------



## Bill Zebub

MarkB said:


> Unintended consequence: The character with the Crafter feat will quickly find themselves becoming the Party Shopper, sent out to make any and all purchases for the group, from getting a round in at the tavern to purchasing huge tracts of land.




The obvious feat chain progression here is Crafter -> Cook -> Barista -> Masseuse.

FINALLY there will be a Druid build that will contribute to the party.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Haplo781 said:


> My question re: Ardlings is, why make another giod-aligned planetouched rather than go for the obvious neutral-aligned?
> 
> Mechanus, Limbo, and the Outlands don't have any representation right now.




They put in a Mechanus-based race in the last UA. There maybe more to come for the other two.


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> I feel a slight twinge of concern.
> 
> If its not set in stone (and it shouldn't be) and something significant changes due to feedback, how will this affect all five of the books being published in 2023?
> 
> Push back their development?  They certainly can't be designed "feedback proof" could they?



Simple enough, they've designed a maximum change, the most they are willing to push the rules. If the feedback is good, they proceed with thst. If not, they roll it back as much as they need to. Either way, current and upcoming books remain compatible.


----------



## SkidAce

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is an opportunity to fix that issue, so yeah, they will be cheesed off if WotC actively decides not to fix the issue by simply making some spells "Psionic", especially if this is "Forever D&D" as they imply. If you can delete races that have been in the PHB since the 1980s, add Angel-Furs, and so on, you can put in a Mystic/Psion class, frankly.



There is truth in this statement.


----------



## MarkB

Neonchameleon said:


> This. I mean I have no interest at all in playing the Ardling but it utterly _nails_ a couple of fantasy characters I've seen newbies want to play. It's not my thing and that's completely fine. It is some other peoples' thing and creates characters that are very hard to play in any other way. So I consider "the pretty anthro celestial furry race" to be a good addition to the game. Not my kink but it is plenty of peoples'.



I mean, it's the only official race that manages to work the phrase "supple bare skin" into its description.


----------



## Zaukrie

I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, but don't expect 2014 Classes and subclasses to remain unchanged. Right at the end of the video they make it clear they're going to do UAs that "drill down" into specific subjects, and among the examples are individual classes.
> 
> So we could potentially see some very significant reconfigurations of classes, because it's not like the old stuff will be "incompatible". If they rejig Monk, completely, the old Monk and old subclasses will still work with 1D&D, just not with 1D&D's version of the Monk, but that's still backwards-compatible (and it really is - I work with software that does stuff like that).



Oh, yeah, especially after what we saw today I think big changes to the Classes are on the menu. In fact, I predict that overhauling each Class is mostly what the playtest will be: 13 Classes, one a month, through next year? Leaving wiggle room for revision playtests gets us to Crawfords "year, maybe a year and a half" time frame


----------



## Cadence

CleverNickName said:


> *Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?*
> 
> It’s bigger than that. *[4]* One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements*[5, 6]* and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.
> 
> *What does backward compatible mean?*
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D.*[5,6]* For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.




Thank you for your bringing this into the thread!  It does look closer to what @GMforPowergamers thought than what I did.


----------



## Haplo781

Demetrios1453 said:


> They put in a Mechanus-based race in the last UA. There maybe more to come for the other two.



That's "you literally come from Mechanus" though, not "your ancestors are from Mechanus."


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I totally get where you're coming from, but like, the sort of people who want a rando anthro are definitely going to be pretty okay with the "angelic wings" deal, because it fits with so much of that stuff. Especially the catgirl types.



As a catgirl type, I disagree, but


----------



## Demetrios1453

SkidAce said:


> I feel a slight twinge of concern.
> 
> If its not set in stone (and it shouldn't be) and something significant changes due to feedback, how will this affect all five of the books being published in 2023?
> 
> Push back their development? They certainly can't be designed "feedback proof" could they?



I assume they've budgeted time frames for the playtesting phase, and the "compile and write the books" phase.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Oh, yeah, especially after what we saw today I think big changes to the Classes are on the menu. In fact, I predict that overhauling each Class is mostly what the playtest will be: 13 Classes, one a month, through next year? Leaving wiggle room for revision playtests gets us to Crawfords "year, maybe a year and a half" time frame



Yeah that seems fairly plausible, though I do wonder if the tempo might be somewhat faster than that, given we're only getting like two weeks with this before feedback starts.


----------



## Charlaquin

Retreater said:


> Just got through the video.
> You have to use Inspiration now. It's tied to feats and racial powers.
> You have to do Initiative the way they say.  It's also tied to a feat.
> But the worst. The absolute worst. Monsters can't crit. Damage is a static, predictable number.
> Do these designers even play the darn game?



Not only do they play it, they pay attention to how it’s being played by their target audience.


----------



## Parmandur

CleverNickName said:


> Well pbbbth.  I finally got a free moment at work, and decided to unpack this "ONE D&D" topic myself, before I had gotten too swept up in all of the hype and emotion.  And I'm gonna have to walk back my previous post about this not being a "new edition of the game."
> 
> First, some required reading (my footnotes in orange):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: From the D&D Beyond FAQ Page
> 
> 
> 
> *What is One D&D?*
> 
> One D&D is the code name for the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons, bringing together three initiatives that will shape the future of the game:
> 
> *D&D Rules.* This takes what we love about fifth edition and updates the rules of the game to reflect the feedback we have heard from players and where the game is today.*[1]*
> *D&D Beyond.* This will be the platform for your digital D&D collection, content, and tools.*[2]*
> *D&D Digital Play Experience.* In early development, D&D Digital will offer an immersive player experience, rich creation tools for Dungeon Masters, and a connected space for DMs and players to get together and play D&D.*[3]*
> Our goal is to give you more D&D wherever you play, whenever you want.
> 
> *Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?*
> 
> It’s bigger than that. *[4]*  One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements*[5, 6]* and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.
> 
> *What does backward compatible mean?*
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D.*[5,6]* For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.
> 
> *What is changing with the One D&D rules?*
> 
> There will be many fundamental updates to D&D that we will collect your feedback on.*[7]*  In the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest content, you’ll see proposed updates to character backgrounds, races, classes, feats, information presentation, and more. Ultimately, the answer to what will change depends on what we hear from you throughout One D&D playtests.
> 
> *When will the One D&D rules be released?*
> 
> The new core rulebooks are expected to be released in 2024.*[6]
> 
> Where can I find out more and stay up to date on the latest One D&D news?*
> 
> To keep up to date on One D&D, sign up for D&D Beyond. Then, hop into your account settings and update your email preferences to receive communications from D&D Beyond. You can expect news on One D&D roughly monthly*[8]*.
> 
> 
> 
> So having read through all of that, slowly and carefully, with a keen eye on not just _what they were saying_ but also _how they were saying it_, and _what they were careful not to say_, I have the following take-aways.
> 
> 1.  They are going to collect some feedback, and then update the 5th Edition rules.  They very carefully dodge the question about whether or not it's a new edition--either because they haven't decided yet, or they don't want to make peoples' heads explode.
> 
> 2.  Weird statement about D&D Beyond being "the platform for your digital D&D."  This isn't news; D&D Beyond has been around for ages.  I wonder why they mentioned it here, in this FAQ about One D&D?
> 
> 3.  They mention something called "D&D Digital," and from the description they give, it reads like a VTT program like Roll20 or Foundry.  Now I'm starting to understand why they mentioned D&D Beyond in point #2, above.
> 
> 4.  They asked themselves a yes-or-no question, and then didn't answer it.  It really drives me crazy when people do that!  Anyway, they will neither confirm nor deny that this is a new edition of the game.  In fact they carefully avoid it altoghter, talking about "new versions," "many updates," "the next generation," and "evolution" instead.
> 
> 5.  They dodge and deflect the question about a 'new edition,' then go on to talk about backwards-compatibility--something that wouldn't need to be discussed at all if this wasn't a new edition.  They confirm that "fifth edition adventures and supplements" will be compatible, and give a specific example with the Curse of Strahd adventure.
> 
> 6.  They don't say the same for the core rulebooks, though.  Instead, they confirm that there will be new versions of the core rulebooks, and they are expected to be released in 2024.
> 
> 7.  Now they finally confirm that the rules are changing.  And they will be collecting feedback on these changes in upcoming Unearthed Arcana content.  It sounds like they already have some UAs written for backgrounds, races, classes, feats, and something called 'information presentation,' and there will be more to come.  As for how broad these changes are going to be, they tell us that it will depend on what they hear "throughout One D&D playtests."
> 
> 8.  There will be monthly updates.  Also, an active D&D Beyond account is required.  This suggests that the materials will be distributed through DDB, and it's likely that from all of the talk about "your digital D&D" that the playtests and feedback will be managed on DDB as well.



Yeah, it's a new Edition, but they don’t want to do it like it was for prior editions, so they are changing the terms for marketing. They want to emphasize continuity.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> I am not sure how to "fix" it at all.....but here and in Level Up, I feel like some of hte things that are racial traits should really be in backgrounds. It isn't a big deal at all, and really doesn't change much once the game starts, frankly.



Oh, I see. Yeah, there are some things I feel that way about too, and will say so in the survey.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

So it turns out that about half of all my 5e characters have been half-elves. Mechanically the combination of favorable ability score bonuses, two unrestricted skill choices, and darkvision gave me what I wanted, and lore-wise since I basically just want to play a human, but don't want one who is completely just a boring human, it suited me as well. Long ago my first D&D character ever was a Half-Elf.

But, even beginning to read the section from the playtest on racial hybrids I was excited, that maybe with these somewhat simplified racial features they would seize the opportunity to let you mix and match racial features of hybrids. But instead you get mix and match cosmetics, but mechanically they've adopted the Muppet system where Kermit and Miss Piggy's children are a bunch of frogs and a bunch of pigs.

They're killing my Half-Elf for this?!


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah that seems fairly plausible, though I do wonder if the tempo might be somewhat faster than that, given we're only getting like two weeks with this before feedback starts.



They said about once a Month, but time will tell.


----------



## cbwjm

Not sure how that monster damage is going to turn out in the end, but I do know that when I started 5e and used static monster damage that my players preferred that I roll damage instead, they preferred there being that variability. Same with crits, getting hit by a crit can be just as exciting as hitting with a crit.


----------



## Kurotowa

Parmandur said:


> Oh, yeah, especially after what we saw today I think big changes to the Classes are on the menu. In fact, I predict that overhauling each Class is mostly what the playtest will be: 13 Classes, one a month, through next year? Leaving wiggle room for revision playtests gets us to Crawfords "year, maybe a year and a half" time frame



That's a little spread out. It doesn't leave any room for revisions or other releases, like the full feat list or updates to spells. I'll put my money on them releasing classes in packs of three or four at a time. Something substantial enough to get real feedback on, but not so huge to overwhelm testers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> As a catgirl type, I disagree, but



I guess I shouldn't generalize about catgirls, it's not right lol.

But okay, I take your point, I just know a lot of other people who play catgirls and similar across various games (video and TT) and the idea of them being able to temporarily sprout pretty magical glowing wings would be like A+++ yes please material to an awful lot of them. If they had permanent big honking feathered or leathery wings that would not be remotely well-received though for most of them.


----------



## Haplo781

Benjamin Olson said:


> So it turns out that about half of all my 5e characters have been half-elves. Mechanically the combination of favorable ability score bonuses, two unrestricted skill choices, and darkvision gave me what I wanted, and lore-wise since I basically just want to play a human, but don't want one who is completely just a boring human, it suited me as well. Long ago my first D&D character ever was a Half-Elf.
> 
> But, even beginning to read the section from the playtest on racial hybrids I was excited, that maybe with these somewhat simplified racial features they would seize the opportunity to let you mix and match racial features of hybrids. But instead you get mix and match cosmetics, but mechanically they've adopted the Muppet system where Kermit and Miss Piggy's children are a bunch of frogs and a bunch of pigs.
> 
> They're killing my Half-Elf for this?!



Half-Elf isn't going away.


----------



## CleverNickName

Zaukrie said:


> I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.



The only "old 5E stuff" that they've confirmed One D&D to work with are 5E adventures (and "supplements," which are deliberately undefined).  If the only 5th Edition D&D materials you own are the published adventures, you're right:  there's little to worry about.

But I've spent a great deal of money on the 5th Edition D&D books _and_ digital content through D&D Beyond and the Roll20 Marketplace.  It's unclear how much of my current material will be compatible (or accessible) in the future, and until I know for certain, I think it matters a great deal.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Not only do they play it, they pay attention to how it’s being played by their target audience.



I'm just wrapping up work, but it looks like from a few comments they are looking to mitigate rng a bit? I'll look over the packet later.


----------



## TwoSix

Zaukrie said:


> I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.



Hmmm…it’s almost like the exact dividing line between editions is functionally meaningless.  Weird how semantic debates work.


----------



## Zaukrie

CleverNickName said:


> The only "old 5E stuff" that they've confirmed One D&D to work with are 5E adventures (and "supplements," which are deliberately undefined).  If the only 5th Edition D&D materials you own are the published adventures, you're right:  there's little to worry about.
> 
> But I've spent a great deal of money on the 5th Edition D&D books _and_ digital content through D&D Beyond and the Roll20 Marketplace.  It's unclear how much of my current material will be compatible, and until I know for certain, I think it matters a great deal.



I do agree that if it isn't balanced enough to play old classes and use old monsters, that people will/should care. That said, for me at least, I've gotten more than my money's worth out of 5e, and I have no issue buying a new version to play the new game(s).


----------



## CleverNickName

Zaukrie said:


> I do agree that if it isn't balanced enough to play old classes and use old monsters, that people will/should care. That said, for me at least, I've gotten more than my money's worth out of 5e, and I have no issue buying a new version to play the new game(s).



I'm on the fence about whether or not to buy new books, but I a new version would be a very hard sell for everyone else in my gaming group.  They still give me grief over "forcing" them to buy Pathfinder in 2012, and 5th Edition PHBs back in 2015...I imagine telling them that we are changing editions again time will go over like a lead balloon...


----------



## dave2008

Retreater said:


> Not sure what you're referring too since I just finished the video and posted about 5 minutes later - I don't think my memory is that bad (yet).



I'm not at my computer so I will have to go back later and look, but I was also cross referencing gge actual playtest document


Retreater said:


> Well he talks about recharge for dragons breath as a special attack. But that a bugbear with a club just shouldn't have a scary or exciting feature, just a standard 12 damage every time. Unless every monster gets a recharge/encounter ability - which could be cool.
> But man, this isn't looking like my teacup the more I'm learning.



That is what he implied, but I would be surprised if it happened. But again, it is a playtest!


----------



## Cadence

Zaukrie said:


> I do agree that if it isn't balanced enough to play old classes and use old monsters, that people will/should care. That said, for me at least, I've gotten more than my money's worth out of 5e, and I have no issue buying a new version to play the new game(s).



I have to say that my 12yo will be disappointed if the various supplements (Tasha, Multiverse, Fizban, etc...) don't work anymore, since he has all of them... and not many of the adventures.


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> Unintended consequence: The character with the Crafter feat will quickly find themselves becoming the Party Shopper, sent out to make any and all purchases for the group, from getting a round in at the tavern to purchasing huge tracts of land.



Yeah, the 20 percent discount is a weird feature for a number of reasons. I’m not a fan, and will be saying so in the survey.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I'm sure the forensic analysts here will point out some imbalance issues here and there, but in general I like everything in the playtest.  YES to feats at first level!  They ones they have selected as "1st level feats" are all over the place in terms of power, but if the optimizers always pick the same few that's fine.

I just started a campaign* with some 9-10 year olds; I might rejigger all their characters to use this material.

*The campaign is Phandelver....when they finish we might have to mothball those characters and wait for the Phandelver expansion next summer.


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> I find it bizarre that they could recognize that virtually everyone house ruled (or at least soft house-ruled) nat 20s and 1s as auto-success or failure outside of combat, bend to that common will, and yet still bizarrely think they can make monster crits on 20s disappear.
> 
> But for me the potential dealbreaker is not the above, easily houseruleable thing, but the dark thing lurking on the horizon of probably eliminating class specific spell lists. Dammit WotC, I don't have time to make my own class spell lists. That's the sort of content I need you for.



I don’t think they’re getting rid of class spell lists. Crawford said in the video that classes will have other ways to grant spells besides these general power source lists.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> I guess I shouldn't generalize about catgirls, it's not right lol.
> 
> But okay, I take your point, I just know a lot of other people who play catgirls and similar across various games (video and TT) and the idea of them being able to temporarily sprout pretty magical glowing wings would be like A+++ yes please material to an awful lot of them. If they had permanent big honking feathered or leathery wings that would not be remotely well-received though for most of them.



I'm shocked a catgirl would be into a "grow wings" henshin sequence.


----------



## Yaarel

The should probably call the 2024 edition:

Dungeons & Deities


----------



## Minigiant

This Effin’ GM said:


> “Soldiers learn Goblin”
> 
> “why?”
> 
> (Loads crossbow) “Soldiers learn goblin.”




Military slang and tactical reports being littered with Goblin cusses, Bugbear contractions, and Hobgoblin terms is hilarious.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

One problem with "Aardlings" is that excluding the Beastlands there aren't that many Beast-like CG Celestials. At the most there's Lillendi (who have humanoid upper torsos and snake lower torso with wings), Asuras (Mostly humanoid except for the wings and bird talon feet) and Tome of Battle Valkyrie (who can be described as Satyr-Angels). The most prevalent CG celestials are the Celestial Eladrins (aka Azata in Pathfinder) or whatever they're going to call them now (Sidhe?) who are all mostly Fey-like.

And this is not counting the fact that about half of the Archon types are also human-like.

I think that while Aardlings have animal features, some players would want to go full Furry, not necessarily everyone wants to go full Furry for such concepts.

I think they should just collapse the concept into Aasimar. No having 2 different races.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cruentus said:


> So , the only way to get the materials is to register on DnD Beyond, and the only way to create an account is to use your google or apple account?  Am I missing something?



I mean, yeah? 


Parmandur said:


> They made it quite clear in the video and the document that half-eaces are gone.



Absolute deal breaker, frankly. No, we are not erasing mixed race folks. The game has room for half elves and half orcs _and_ rules for making new mixed ancestries. 


Zaukrie said:


> I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.



The nomenclature doesn’t really matter, it just gets argued because nerds like correcting people, all that actually matters is whether you will need a conversion document to play a PC with stuff from 2024 and from Tasha’s. 


Parmandur said:


> Yeah, it's a new Edition, but they don’t want to do it like it was for prior editions, so they are changing the terms for marketing. They want to emphasize continuity.



I mean, if it’s not a new edition in the sense the term has been used in the history of D&D … it’s not a new edition. 

Unfortunately, it really looks like it could be functionally a new edition. I cannot fathom ho they think that’s a good idea.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Kobold Avenger said:


> One problem with "Aardlings" is that excluding the Beastlands there aren't that many Beast-like CG Celestials. At the most there's Lillendi (who have humanoid upper torsos and snake lower torso with wings), Asuras (Mostly humanoid except for the wings and bird talon feet) and Tome of Battle Valkyrie (who can be described as Satyr-Angels). The most prevalent CG celestials are the Celestial Eladrins (aka Azata in Pathfinder) or whatever they're going to call them now (Sidhe?) who are all mostly Fey-like.
> 
> And this is not counting the fact that about half of the Archon types are also human-like.
> 
> I think that while Aardlings have animal features, some players would want to go full Furry, not necessarily everyone wants to go full Furry for such concepts.
> 
> I think they should just collapse the concept into Aasimar. No having 2 different races.



The CG ones would be descendants of the Animal Lords and the like from the Beastlands.

Of course, they may just make up a new set of CG celestials to replace the appropriated 2e eladrin, but I would personally prefer for them to keep the tulani and the like and give them a new group name ("celestial eladrin" perhaps?)


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, yeah?
> 
> Absolute deal breaker, frankly. No, we are not erasing mixed race folks. The game has room for half elves and half orcs _and_ rules for making new mixed ancestries.




Especially since it doesn't seem hard to give guidance on mixing and matching or making up new things... in the DMG if nowhere else.


----------



## TwoSix

doctorbadwolf said:


> Unfortunately, it really looks like it could be functionally a new edition. I cannot fathom ho they think that’s a good idea.



Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far to suggest a 2014 character and 2024 character can't play at the same table with no conversion necessary, but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Benjamin Olson said:


> They're killing my Half-Elf for this?!



I'm almost certain they aren't given it's one of the most popular races by the D&D Beyond. This feels like being deliberately slightly provocative to see the response.


----------



## Mecheon

Ardlings are... Odd. Especially with them being portrayed as the anti-tiefling which was, well, the aasimar's job in the past. Now, I'd very much say the aasimar didn't do a good job of encompassing the range there, but just the same, ardlings sort of do the same poor job in that they're blatently tied to guardinals, even with the odd edge cases we can draw out. Though, the vague idea of 'beastmen have angelic ancestory' is also kind of interesting, especially with how other stuff tends to do the 'oh beastmen? yeah they're evil things of the wilds'. Not in D&D

However, just flat, basic orcs are a base race so I'm happy. No more of this 'half orcs are fine but regular orcs are too evil' nonsense. Orcs be orcing


----------



## Haplo781

Demetrios1453 said:


> The CG ones would be descendants of the Animal Lords and the like from the Beastlands.
> 
> Of course, they may just make up a new set of CG celestials to replace the appropriated 2e eladrin, but I would personally prefer for them to keep the tulani and the like and give them a new group name ("celestial eladrin" perhaps?)



Coure?


----------



## darjr

Oh the soldier background with Goblin in it is an Eberron reference!


----------



## Cadence

RE: Ardlings -  Is it just that Tieflings are edgy and cool, and aasimar aren't.  But animal headed and possibly furry aasimar would be?

RE: Half-Elves  -  Is it that calling out half's  as generally not wanted by the parents is bad?  (Or something like the reaction to the use of Half-Blood in Percy Jackson?)   Will letting all of the races mix freely end up with more people wondering even more why they're different races at all, and to ask why they can't just mix and match whatever they want?


----------



## Zaukrie

I think it is interesting (?) that a game that is de-emphasizing alignment (IMO) has decided it needs the good version of tieflings, by alignment.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm almost certain they aren't given it's one of the most popular races by the D&D Beyond. This feels like being deliberately slightly provocative to see the response.



Right, this is a UA version.

Honestly, perhaps instead of forcing either (for example) all human or all elven mechanical traits, they should allow both the "all" options like here, and allow mixing and matching of traits. That would definitely allow for the greatest flexibility. Granted, that could result in people picking overpowered parental combos, so they would have to walk a narrow line with that.


----------



## Haplo781

Zaukrie said:


> I think it is interesting (?) that a game that is de-emphasizing alignment (IMO) has decided it needs the good version of tieflings, by alignment.



That's just Aasimar ...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm almost certain they aren't given it's one of the most popular races by the D&D Beyond. This feels like being deliberately slightly provocative to see the response.



My feeling, as a long-term Half-Elf player is that they'll get away with it.

There really isn't that much difference, on paper, between playing a Half-Elf and playing an Elf and saying they're a Half-Elf (as suggested here). I think off-paper it is a bit different because you have to keep explaining to people that you're not ACTUALLY an Elf, you're a Half-Elf, and so on (hoping Beyond lets you customize the name of the race in your Race field), but I think that won't get noticed until people actually playtest this stuff at the table, which likely will be a long time after Sept. 1st when the feedback is due.

So we will indeed say "RIP Half-Elves" as a separate race.

It's not completely impossible to imagine they might bring them back as an "example" half-race, though - just an example, of course, like how Backgrounds are all examples.

Also did everyone notice they removed the old semi-mechanical semi-RP benefit backgrounds have? I mean it's fine, but it's of note, I think.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mecheon said:


> However, just flat, basic orcs are a base race so I'm happy. No more of this 'half orcs are fine but regular orcs are too evil' nonsense. Orcs be orcing



Orcs seem really good, too, like an absolute obvious choice for a martial melee. I expect to see an absolute ton of Orc Paladins, particularly.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> My feeling, as a long-term Half-Elf player is that they'll get away with it.



We must fight, brother!
We must fight for the half elf, half orc,half giant, and half dwarf inclusion!

Join the Half Race Appreciation Society!


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Haplo781 said:


> My question re: Ardlings is, why make another giod-aligned planetouched rather than go for the obvious neutral-aligned?
> 
> Mechanus, Limbo, and the Outlands don't have any representation right now.



Presumably, they wanted to mirror the "choose your planar origin" thing they were doing with Tieflings, but didn't want to overhaul the Aasimar again so soon after MotM, and the fact that Aasimar as presented in 5e are pretty much universally flavored as "angel-descended planetouched" made it comparatively easier to just create a new race to cover the existing variety of non-angelic celestials.

That said, I would like to seen a Law-based Axani/Zenythri/Aphorite-type and Chaos-based Cansin/Ganzi-type planetouched at some point...


----------



## DND_Reborn

My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.


----------



## cbwjm

Just looking over the backgrounds, weird that they're listing out specific languages. I know that it includes a statement where you can swap things out, it's just weird that backgrounds like charlatan knows Infernal or cultists knows Abyssal (rather than choose Abyssal or Infernal). For every background except criminal, it just seems like they're trying to shoehorn in the language choices.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Charlaquin said:


> Neat, though I wish other languages had signed equivalents as well.




I'm not sure I do. Languages are burdensome to implement in any case. I like the fact that the deaf across species can speak to each other, even if they don't come from the same culture.


Charlaquin said:


> Well, weaker until 5th level, then equivalent until 9th. Considering most campaigns end by 10th level or so, this is probably a net nerf overall, with the potential to become a late-game buff. Seems like a good call to me.




We can disagree. 5-8 it's functionally the same. 1-4 go by quick enough in most games IME that it's meaningless. Anything above 8 it's a gain. It was hardly a feat that was crying out for strengthening.


Charlaquin said:


> In the video, Jeremy Crawford explains that in the 2024 edition, every spell will be tagged as Arcane, Divine, or Primal (and in some cases more than one of the above). He also hinted that classes might grant access to spells in other ways that just the general power source lists.




That's too bad -- I like that some spells (Eldritch Blast, for example) are not on the list.


----------



## Medic

DND_Reborn said:


> My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.



Just for you.


----------



## a.everett1287

DND_Reborn said:


> My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.



This means I should check it out, innit?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Ruin Explorer said:


> Also did everyone notice they removed the old semi-mechanical semi-RP benefit backgrounds have? I mean it's fine, but it's of note, I think.



I noticed, and I liked it. Those were a great idea that never went anywhere. Most of them are mostly useless (or only useful in the once or twice a campaign sense, such that people forgot they had them when they would be useful). Since most are not useful DMs tend to want to construe the useful ones as useless as well, lest someone get an unbalanced boon.

But what made me actively dislike them is that they were a barrier to easy generation of custom backgrounds.


----------



## Shardstone

Honestly, the mixed race rules are the D&D equivalent of the one drop rule. Pretty naughty word up, imo.


----------



## Magister Ludorum

felopez said:


> That's just 4e martial powers, which I'm completely in favor of returning to.



A return to 4e martial powers is one of the few changes they could make that would make me not buy anything D&D beginning in 2024. The other big one would be doing away with spell levels. There were some things that I liked from 4e (healing surges, psionic classes being in the game, and a few others) but martial powers and wizards having low level spells disappear from their spell books were among the major deal breakers for my group.


----------



## Shiroiken

Overall I think the concepts presented for character creation are pretty solid. I think the feats need a bit reworked, as Lucky is more powerful than other options, and Savage Attacker is still trash.


----------



## Haplo781

Magister Ludorum said:


> A return to 4e martial powers is one of the few changes they could make that would make me not buy anything D&D beginning in 2024. The other big one would be doing away with spell levels. There were some things that I liked from 4e (healing surges, psionic classes being in the game, and a few others) but martial powers and wizards having low level spells disappear from their spell books were among the major deal breakers for my group.



Fine, we'll just make maneuvers a universal thing for martial classes. And give them levels.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Medic said:


> Just for you.
> View attachment 258307



THANKS! 



a.everett1287 said:


> This means I should check it out, innit?



Reverse psychology or brutal truth? Only _you_ can decide!


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kobold Stew said:


> We can disagree. 5-8 [Lucky is] functionally the same. 1-4 go by quick enough in most games IME that it's meaningless. Anything above 8 it's a gain. It was hardly a feat that was crying out for strengthening.



Lucky's had the actually obnoxious part of it removed. The original text is below.
_You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw._​This got seriously OP when you were making a check with disadvantage or facing an attack with advantage. If you made a check/attack with disadvantage and then used Lucky you could pick any of the three dice, turning Disadvantage into Super-Advantage. Worse than that if you rolled a 20 and something else with Disadvantage you could see that 20, trigger lucky, and turn it into a crit no matter what you rolled on the extra dice.

New Lucky can't be used unless you're simply rolling 1d20 and can't be used for auto-crits. It's a non-trivial nerf and 5-8 Lucky isn't functionally the same.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Kobold Avenger said:


> One problem with "Aardlings" is that excluding the Beastlands there aren't that many Beast-like CG Celestials. At the most there's Lillendi (who have humanoid upper torsos and snake lower torso with wings), Asuras (Mostly humanoid except for the wings and bird talon feet) and Tome of Battle Valkyrie (who can be described as Satyr-Angels). The most prevalent CG celestials are the Celestial Eladrins (aka Azata in Pathfinder) or whatever they're going to call them now (Sidhe?) who are all mostly Fey-like.
> 
> And this is not counting the fact that about half of the Archon types are also human-like.
> 
> I think that while Aardlings have animal features, some players would want to go full Furry, not necessarily everyone wants to go full Furry for such concepts.
> 
> I think they should just collapse the concept into Aasimar. No having 2 different races.



Guardinals - the entire plane of Elysium is full of straight up animal-celestials.

EDIT: And no sooner do I hit post than I realize you were specifying CG celestials... Disregard.


----------



## a.everett1287

DND_Reborn said:


> THANKS!
> 
> 
> Reverse psychology or brutal truth? Only _you_ can decide!



Haha, I don't know what would be brutal about that opinion, but I've seen your other posts on the board; if you're down on it I might like it


----------



## Kobold Stew

Ten Feats are included.

*Improved*: Magic Initiate. Clustering of spells enriches choice. Spells chosen are not tied to any particular casting stat -- a cleric can easily pick up an attack cantrip and find familiar, and use Wisdom as the casting stat for them all. My go-to feat has just got stronger.

Lucky (yes, you get one fewer point at levels 1-4, but from then on it improves.)

Tavern Brawler. First, it's much more clearly written. Rather than talk about improvised weapons, it makes explicit that "furniture" counts as a club or greatclub (and would use proficiency with that) -- that's much better than the improvidsed weapon wording, though I think "furniture" is wrong. Free shove with no save is better than bonus action grapple attempt.

*Balanced*: Alert (still A-tier, with a cool new ability)

Healer (Still mid-tier.)

*New*: Crafter: A nice addition, strengthening tool use. I wonder if the discount on non-magical items includes gems (so that 300 gp of diamonds for Revivify costs a crafter only 240)? It becomes metaphysical: does the spell requires you to have shelled out 300 gp for diamonds (even if someone is overcharging you, and you only get something otherwise worth 60 gp) or can you get bulk discounts? (This is also a question about supply and demand's relationship to magic).

Musician: operationalizes Inspiration, and gives multiple musical proficiencies, mostly meaninglessly.

*Unchanged*: Tough, Skilled, Savage Attacker.


Initial impression: The feats they've improved were all top-tier feats already. New and Unchanged feats are all mid-to low tier.


----------



## DND_Reborn

a.everett1287 said:


> Haha, I don't know what would be brutal about that opinion, but I've seen your other posts on the board; if you're down on it I might like it



Knock yourself out.


----------



## MarkB

cbwjm said:


> Just looking over the backgrounds, weird that they're listing out specific languages. I know that it includes a statement where you can swap things out, it's just weird that backgrounds like charlatan knows Infernal or cultists knows Abyssal (rather than choose Abyssal or Infernal). For every background except criminal, it just seems like they're trying to shoehorn in the language choices.



They are specifically just example backgrounds, built using the rules for custom backgrounds. You can use them as-is, or change any aspect of them using those rules.


----------



## CleverNickName

Maybe they'll divide the game up into "blocks," similar to the way they do Magic: the Gathering cards.   Like how in M:tG, if I don't want to use the Infect mechanic, I know to avoid cards from the _Scars of Mirrodin _block.  If they are trying to adopt a similar model for the next edition of D&D, they're already halfway there.  Like, if I want to avoid plasmoids, I know to avoid books in the _Spelljammer _"block".


----------



## Medic

Shardstone said:


> Honestly, the mixed race rules are the D&D equivalent of the one drop rule. Pretty naughty word up, imo.



They are pretty emaciated, in my opinion, and do gloss over the many tangible implications of mixed lineage. Then again, I'm not really expecting much from a small pdf of playtest material.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

I'm hoping that this is the heart of the changes and not just the tip of the iceberg. Given that races were the aspect the designers seemed most unhappy with it's possible this (and backgrounds being adjusted in response) is where they were most inclined to radical reworking.

But the degree of proposed change in this document fills me with trepidation about what future playtest documents will hold.


----------



## jmartkdr2

TwoSix said:


> Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far to suggest a 2014 character and 2024 character can't play at the same table with no conversion necessary, but maybe I'm missing something.



It looks like they _technically_ can, but the balance might be off even compared to the existing balance issues.

Whether that's a major, minor, or non- issue is a personal opinion.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kobold Stew said:


> Initial impression: The feats they've improved were all top-tier feats already. New and Unchanged feats are all mid-to low tier.



I can't agree they've improved Lucky given it no longer works on rolls where there was already Advantage or Disadvantage and even if it did it would be no better at up to level 8. And I can't agree that Tavern Brawler was top tier. 

Magic Initiate is the major problem child. Shilleleaghs and Healing Word for all - or Shield for Plate Armoured Clerics.


----------



## rooneg

So, I think my problem with the proposed way to handle Half-Elf and Half-Orc characters is that it’s just not mechanically close to what they’ve been up to now. Half-Elves get Darkvision, and they definitely don’t get (by default anyway) all this spellcasting. Now I either have to use Human rules and lose out on the Darkvision or Elf rules and get a WAY more elfy version of the character than you usually get as a Half-Elf. Half-Orc is less of an issue, honestly, but the Half-Elf is a real problem mechanically. It’s not a deal breaker for me, but I’ll definitely be complaining about it when they surveys drop.


----------



## cbwjm

rooneg said:


> So, I think my problem with the proposed way to handle Half-Elf and Half-Orc characters is that it’s just not mechanically close to what they’ve been up to now. Half-Elves get Darkvision, and they definitely don’t get (by default anyway) all this spellcasting. Now I either have to use Human rules and lose out on the Darkvision or Elf rules and get a WAY more elfy version of the character than you usually get as a Half-Elf. Half-Orc is less of an issue, honestly, but the Half-Elf is a real problem mechanically. It’s not a deal breaker for me, but I’ll definitely be complaining about it when they surveys drop.



I'm thinking I might mix and match race abilities to create half races. Will see what happens with the rest of the playtest though.


----------



## dave2008

dave2008 said:


> Yes, these are wonderful changes for many people. Not necessarily for me, but I'm ok with that. However, this a playtest. Let them know what you think. A lot changed in the Next playtest, so it could happen here to.
> 
> Plus you got some things wrong in your list up there.





Retreater said:


> Just got through the video.
> You have to use Inspiration now. It's tied to feats and racial powers.



It was never technically optional. That being said you can still ignore it. 


Retreater said:


> You have to do Initiative the way they say.  It's also tied to a feat.



No, alternate initiative methods still work.


Retreater said:


> But the worst. The absolute worst. Monsters can't crit. Damage is a static, predictable number.



They are proposing getting rid of monster crits, which I am fine with personally. However, that doesn't make damage static.


Retreater said:


> Do these designers even play the darn game?


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> I'm just wrapping up work, but it looks like from a few comments they are looking to mitigate rng a bit? I'll look over the packet later.



Specifically, nat 1s and 20s auto fail and auto succeed on ability checks and saves now as well as on attack rolls (which they rightly pointed out a lot of people would probably be surprised to learn isn’t how it already works), and they’re changing critical hits to only be on weapon attacks (and unarmed strikes) that PCs make; monsters can’t crit, and spells can’t crit. Also, the wording on crits makes it explicitly only double the _weapon’s_ damage dice, so assuming sneak attack and smite and the like work the same way, we can assume those wouldn’t double on a crit. The common theme here seems to be trying to curtail the balancing issues crits cause.

In the video they stressed _very_ hard that this is “just an experiment.” Which tells me they are braced for the very likely backlash against this change and are fully prepared to drop it.


----------



## Magister Ludorum

Haplo781 said:


> Fine, we'll just make maneuvers a universal thing for martial classes. And give them levels.



I am fine with that. I liked many of the martial powers, but I disliked the one's that felt like they went beyond martial abilities (blinding everyone in a square with your dagger for example, or magically pulling enemies across the board). 

I am an avid HERO player. I would love a good set of martial maneuvers that all martial characters could access.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Query: why do some of y’all dislike the change to grappling? 

Seems much more sensible, to me. It’s an unarmed attack. You can avoid it by being good at avoiding melee attacks. Monks don’t suck at it, now. Etc.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TwoSix said:


> Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far to suggest a 2014 character and 2024 character can't play at the same table with no conversion necessary, but maybe I'm missing something.



The changes to the general rules are what worry me, not the changes to races. 

You can literally use a PHB 2014 Wood Elf with a playtest background, no conversion needed. So far, so good. But while I agree with most of the general rules changes, the document in total and the video all taken together make me think they are willing to go far enough that you _wont_ be able to make a character using pre and post 2024 books without conversion. 


Cadence said:


> Especially since it doesn't seem hard to give guidance on mixing and matching or making up new things... in the DMG if nowhere else.



Yep. Exactly. Hopefully they get enough such feedback to change course a little.


----------



## Charlaquin

CleverNickName said:


> I'm on the fence about whether or not to buy new books, but I a new version would be a very hard sell for everyone else in my gaming group.  They still give me grief over "forcing" them to buy Pathfinder in 2012, and 5th Edition PHBs back in 2015...I imagine telling them that we are changing editions again time will go over like a lead balloon...



Frankly, they’re probably counting on that, as a big part of how they’re going to try to sell folks on the whatever the digital product is going to be.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Neonchameleon said:


> Lucky's had the actually obnoxious part of it removed. The original text is below.
> _You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw._​This got seriously OP when you were making a check with disadvantage or facing an attack with advantage. If you made a check/attack with disadvantage and then used Lucky you could pick any of the three dice, turning Disadvantage into Super-Advantage. Worse than that if you rolled a 20 and something else with Disadvantage you could see that 20, trigger lucky, and turn it into a crit no matter what you rolled on the extra dice.
> 
> New Lucky can't be used unless you're simply rolling 1d20 and can't be used for auto-crits. It's a non-trivial nerf and 5-8 Lucky isn't functionally the same.




In 2015 Crawford identified that reading as a potential problem. In my view, they've fixed it, not nerfed a contorted reading.


----------



## dave2008

DND_Reborn said:


> My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.



Really, I love the new build-a-background guidelines and moving the ASI to backgrounds too. I also like the concept of giving races cool abilities, like inspiration for humans and tremorsense for dwarfs. I'm mixed on the crit changes for myself, but I think it is overall a good idea. I like the slowed condition and magic sources. I'm not sure about the feat changes yet (leveled) and what means going forward, but interested to see where it goes. That's just off the top of my hear after a quick read.


----------



## OB1

Charlaquin said:


> Specifically, nat 1s and 20s auto fail and auto succeed on ability checks and saves now as well as on attack rolls (which they rightly pointed out a lot of people would probably be surprised to learn isn’t how it already works), and they’re changing critical hits to only be on weapon attacks (and unarmed strikes) that PCs make; monsters can’t crit, and spells can’t crit. Also, the wording on crits makes it explicitly only double the _weapon’s_ damage dice, so assuming sneak attack and smite and the like work the same way, we can assume those wouldn’t double on a crit. The common theme here seems to be trying to curtail the balancing issues crits cause.
> 
> In the video they stressed _very_ hard that this is “just an experiment.” Which tells me they are braced for the very likely backlash against this change and are fully prepared to drop it.



I would guess that the revised classes like Rogue and Paladin, as well as monsters, will have additional effects that still key off a nat 20 (specific beats general).  That said, that may be the only real DPR nerf to some 2014 built characters playing next to 2024 characters, since the 2014 PCs won't have the exception in their rules (unless there is another general exception that if you are using 2014 class builds, they retain their double all dice crits).  Everything else just seems to be a new way to build to the same math so far.  If you are playing new adventures with an entire party in the 2014 rule set, you probably won't notice the difference.

So yeah, I'd call this fully compatible in my book.  Can't wait to see what comes next.


----------



## Demetrios1453

CleverNickName said:


> I'm on the fence about whether or not to buy new books, but I a new version would be a very hard sell for everyone else in my gaming group. They still give me grief over "forcing" them to buy Pathfinder in 2012, and 5th Edition PHBs back in 2015...I imagine telling them that we are changing editions again time will go over like a lead balloon...



I mean, by that point it will nearly have been 10 years. I understand not wanting to re-buy things, but I'm sure most of them will have replaced dozens of far more expensive items in that time frame. One PHB after 10 years isn't bad, given the normal edition turnover rate.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> I think it is interesting (?) that a game that is de-emphasizing alignment (IMO) has decided it needs the good version of tieflings, by alignment.



It’s just what planes you can trace your ancestry back to, and has no impact on the individual Tiefling’s or Aardling’s alignment.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

UngeheuerLich said:


> Gut feeling: surprise works differently.




Anyone point out yet that Surprise just gives the surprised disadvantage on Init?


----------



## Savage Wombat

Two thoughts on the changes to criticals:

1) Letting monsters have crits could now be an example of an "opt-in" rules option, where DMs can implement it out of a desire to make the base game more deadly.

2) Reducing critical hits to just increasing the base die would allow for the re-introduction of weapons that have an improved critical range, at least in theory.


----------



## Haplo781

Magister Ludorum said:


> I am fine with that. I liked many of the martial powers, but I disliked the one's that felt like they went beyond martial abilities (blinding everyone in a square with your dagger for example, or magically pulling enemies across the board).
> 
> I am an avid HERO player. I would love a good set of martial maneuvers that all martial characters could access.



Ah yes, wizards get to break reality but fighters are bound by "guy at the gym"


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kobold Stew said:


> In 2015 Crawford identified that reading as a potential problem. In my view, they've fixed it, not nerfed a contorted reading.



They might have fixed it - but that reading was unequivocally the rules as written even if not the rules as intended. The fix might be an errata-nerf but it still makes Lucky a whole lot less powerful.


----------



## CleverNickName

Charlaquin said:


> Frankly, they’re probably counting on that, as a big part of how they’re going to try to sell folks on the whatever the digital product is going to be.



The playtest itself is a powerful sales tool...it's that time-honored sales tactic of "make them think it's their idea."  Yes, they would like to collect feedback, but they also need us to feel invested in it--give us a personal stake in it.  They don't need to listen to us, not as much as they need _us _to feel _listened to._

No judgment here; I know how the sausage gets made and I still love a good hot dog.


----------



## Parmandur

Kurotowa said:


> That's a little spread out. It doesn't leave any room for revisions or other releases, like the full feat list or updates to spells. I'll put my money on them releasing classes in packs of three or four at a time. Something substantial enough to get real feedback on, but not so huge to overwhelm testers.



They said a year, and Mayne a year and a half. Since the Classes are probably what theybare primarily going to test, seems about right. They have never, wver put Monsters through UA, and theybalready appear to have those changes worked out per MotM.


----------



## DND_Reborn

dave2008 said:


> Really, I love the new build-a-background guidelines and *moving the ASI to backgrounds too.*



Which is completely and utterly pointless.

People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.

It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...

Anyway, bowing out.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TwoSix said:


> Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far to suggest a 2014 character and 2024 character can't play at the same table with no conversion necessary, but maybe I'm missing something.



I should clarify, my initial very negative reaction was more about how people described the new stuff than about the media itself. Rewatching the video while not freaking out, it does seem to be that they want to be able to make PCs with stuff from any point in 5e’s publication life, without any conversion.


----------



## Magister Ludorum

Haplo781 said:


> Ah yes, wizards get to break reality but fighters are bound by "guy at the gym"




Sure whatever. Play with your strawman by yourself.


----------



## Charlaquin

cbwjm said:


> Just looking over the backgrounds, weird that they're listing out specific languages. I know that it includes a statement where you can swap things out, it's just weird that backgrounds like charlatan knows Infernal or cultists knows Abyssal (rather than choose Abyssal or Infernal). For every background except criminal, it just seems like they're trying to shoehorn in the language choices.



Keep in mind, they’re presenting create-your-own-background as the default and the pre-written backgrounds as examples. They give a specific language for the same reason they grant a specific tool, and a specific feat, and specific ASIs, and specific starting equipment: because they’re for if you just want to pick a background and call it a day instead of making all those choices yourself.


----------



## Haplo781

Magister Ludorum said:


> Sure whatever. Play with your strawman by yourself.



Please explain how it's a strawman.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> Ah yes, wizards get to break reality but fighters are bound by "guy at the gym"



It is Ok that is how some want to play, just as the opposite is for others. I mean GoT was really popular (mundane martials)


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> It is Ok that is how some want to play, just as the opposite is for others. I mean GoT was really popular (mundane martials)



And those of us who want martials who can actually do cool things should have the option.

Your way is not the One True Way.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> And those of us who want martials who can actually do cool things should have the option.
> 
> Your way is not the One True Way.



It is not my way. And there are cool options, he was complaining about 4e after all! One of my favorite editions btw


----------



## Charlaquin

Kobold Stew said:


> I'm not sure I do. Languages are burdensome to implement in any case. I like the fact that the deaf across species can speak to each other, even if they don't come from the same culture.



I’m not saying I don’t want Common sign language to exist (which would allow deaf and hard of hearing people from across cultures to communicate). I just want other sign languages to exist so that deaf and hard of hearing people can communicate with each other within their culture without being understood by others. That’s the main use for languages in D&D anyway, right? Everyone speaks Common, so you don’t need other languages to be understood. You need them so you can speak to your in-group _without_ being understood by folks outside of it.


----------



## dave2008

DND_Reborn said:


> Which is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.
> 
> It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...
> 
> Anyway, bowing out.



Ok, didn't mean to hit a nerve.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> Anyone point out yet that Surprise just gives the surprised disadvantage on Init?



I missed that. 

My first thought was that it makes surprise pretty weak. 

Second thought was that maybe that’s a good thing. 

I had never thought of surprise as too powerful, but now I think this change makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Charlaquin

Kobold Stew said:


> Lucky (yes, you get one fewer point at levels 1-4, but from then on it improves.)



Doesn’t actually improve until 9th level, because from 5-8 it’s the same number of uses per day as in the 2014 version. Moreover, it no longer stacks with advantage and disadvantage. I think this is a fantastic change because it’s actually an overall nerf, disguised as a buff.


----------



## Bill Zebub

DND_Reborn said:


> Which is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.
> 
> It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...
> 
> Anyway, bowing out.




A lot of people argued that floating ASIs are too confusing for newbies and there needs to be a default. 

If that was meant with sincerity then that concern has been addressed. 

But if it was a disingenuous argument, and the real goal was just to protect racial ASIs…well, then, that’s kind of funny.


----------



## Vaalingrade

DND_Reborn said:


> Which is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.
> 
> It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...
> 
> Anyway, bowing out.



The ASIs are now part of an effective 'background step' alongside choosing skills, tools and language.


----------



## MarkB

Halflings really seem to have lost out in terms of design space here - very boring compared to the rest. And I really wish they'd taken more of a pass on Brave - conditional advantage on saves always slows things down at the table.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

Looks pretty solid so far! One thing I dislike is the loss of the Savage Attacks traits from half-orc since they're changing how mixed races work. It means greataxes are now inferior to greatswords in all cases.


----------



## Galandris

Gammadoodler said:


> I always thought it was pronounced..
> 
> "Ahhhh-forget it"
> 
> Just like the Aaracockra.
> 
> If it means so much to you be first in line at the alphabetization contest that you have 2 A's at the front of your race name, you are not cool enough to be a fantasy race.




Yet, they lose the alphabetization contest to Humans in the playtest document.


----------



## Charlaquin

jmartkdr2 said:


> It looks like they _technically_ can, but the balance might be off even compared to the existing balance issues.
> 
> Whether that's a major, minor, or non- issue is a personal opinion.



Note the sidebar near the very beginning of the UA: “*Power Level.* The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form.”


----------



## DND_Reborn

dave2008 said:


> Ok, didn't mean to hit a nerve.



No worries. Just that this sample is not very promising (to me, anyway...). Nothing personal taken, just so you know.


----------



## Faolyn

DND_Reborn said:


> Which is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.
> 
> It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...
> 
> Anyway, bowing out.



I think a lot of people aren't going to bother customizing their backgrounds.

And I don't think the change is pointless here. With races, it outright says that you're born better than other creatures in some way. With backgrounds, it says that you managed to improve yourself with time and effort. A noble has gotten a good education and learned manners and diplomacy, so raising Cha and Int make sense. A gladiator has learned how to fight and how to please the crowd, so raising Strength and Cha make sense.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> Anyone point out yet that Surprise just gives the surprised disadvantage on Init?



Yeah. Checks out with the post-MMotM version of False Appearance.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I should clarify, my initial very negative reaction was more about how people described the new stuff than about the media itself. Rewatching the video while not freaking out, it does seem to be that they want to be able to make PCs with stuff from any point in 5e’s publication life, without any conversion.



That makes sense. I was a little surprised at your negative reaction, as these seem like changes I would have guessed you would mostly be in favor of. Personally I don’t love _everything_ in this UA, but I do love the general direction, and I’d say most of the changes look positive to me. My biggest gripes are the changes to nat 1s and 20s (which are easy to ignore) and the Aardling race, which I low-key hate. But, I can accept that I’m just not the target audience for them.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> As a catgirl type, I disagree, but




Seeing as you have to land (or fall) at the end of movement, just fluff it as a prodigious leap!


----------



## Ixal

Faolyn said:


> I think a lot of people aren't going to bother customizing their backgrounds.
> 
> And I don't think the change is pointless here. With races, it outright says that you're born better than other creatures in some way. With backgrounds, it says that you managed to improve yourself with time and effort. A noble has gotten a good education and learned manners and diplomacy, so raising Cha and Int make sense. A gladiator has learned how to fight and how to please the crowd, so raising Strength and Cha make sense.



And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.

It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings and throwing stones? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else. Dwarves being able to handle beer (and other posion) better because of their constitution? Not anymore.

"But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> Halflings really seem to have lost out in terms of design space here - very boring compared to the rest. And I really wish they'd taken more of a pass on Brave - conditional advantage on saves always slows things down at the table.



Yeah, Stealth proficiency in place of poison resistance or the preternatural ability to hide behind Medium and larger creatures feels like a huge nerf. Though I can see wanting to change Naturally Stealthy since so many DMs outright refuse to let it work the way it  clearly says it does (and same for Mask of the Wild), replacing it with Stealth proficiency is just incredibly disappointing.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> Seeing as you have to land (or fall) at the end of movement, just fluff it as a prodigious leap!



I mean, ok, that works for cats. Not so much for like… I dunno, cows or something.

This is just a divide between different types of furry. I like my anthros to cleave very close to the animals they’re based on, because animals are freaking cool, and their behaviors and traits make for a really cool lens through which to reframe human behaviors and traits. But @Ruin Explorer is absolutely right, there’s a different subset of furries to whom “anthro but also an angel with magic spectral wings sometimes” is going to be everything they’ve ever wanted in an OC.


----------



## Mallus

First reactions:

The animal-headed celestial race looks great. Because I’ve wanted to play a character based on those cynocephalic St. Christopher paintings for years. Also because I put an entire city of similar creatures in my latest homebrew. Great minds and all…

Moving ASIs to Backgrounds is… fine.

The bonus languages in the Backgrounds are… kinda random? It feels like structure for structure’s sake.

Starting with a Feat is good. Feats are fun.

Giving the magic-y races a standardized cantrip/spell/spell is nice and elegant.

Spells can’t crit anymore???


----------



## Faolyn

Ixal said:


> And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
> A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.
> 
> It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else.
> 
> "But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.



Because, when applied to sentient beings in a fantasy setting, it can be unpleasantly and pointlessly limiting. 

It can also be bigoted at times, when done badly. Especially when it comes to the mental stats.

But take your good elven archers and your good halfling slingers. Those are both cultural things that should have nothing to do with their biology. Elves aren't born knowing how to use a bow. And in D&D, both would be represented by a higher Dex, which means that there's no mechanical flavor differences between the two. 

Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave? Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zaukrie said:


> I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.



It matters because everything coming out from now on, including likely the bulk of 3PP material, will be replaced by the new presentation and format.  The 2014 5e will be erased effectively, because the new stuff will still be 5e officially.


----------



## Cadence

Faolyn said:


> Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave?




You didn't have to did you? You could have made it your dump stat and been much less dextrous than a stereotypical elf, right? Even after the old style ASI.



Faolyn said:


> Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons




You could have made str one you maxed out in initial character creation right, and been much stronger than an average member of the stereotypically strong races?

----

But anyway, I don't particularly see the point of requiring them to go with a background either.  Why can't my outrageously strong character have decided to be a scholar, instead of developing the strength by doing something physical?


----------



## Ixal

Faolyn said:


> Because, when applied to sentient beings in a fantasy setting, it can be unpleasantly and pointlessly limiting.
> 
> It can also be bigoted at times, when done badly. Especially when it comes to the mental stats.
> 
> But take your good elven archers and your good halfling slingers. Those are both cultural things that should have nothing to do with their biology. Elves aren't born knowing how to use a bow. And in D&D, both would be represented by a higher Dex, which means that there's no mechanical flavor differences between the two.
> 
> Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave? Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons.



Thats frankly nonsense.

Why are elves and halflings better archers or throwers? Not because of background but because of their biology simply allowing better hand-eye coordination. Same way as for example Tau in Wh40K. Yes they might not know how to use a bow just because they are born (aka, playing a class with no bow proficiency), but their hand-eye coordination stays. The same way a chimps or gorillas muscle density is way higher than a humans so a small chimp could rival a grown man. You are talking about different races, of course there would be biological differences.

It doesn't matter that your elven slave performed hard labour his entire life. The dexterity is in his genes, the same way as having two eyes and two arms. It doesn't have to develop. What your elf develops is a lot of strength, represented by putting a high score into strength. That is what training represents. But ASI you get just for existing.


----------



## dave2008

Ixal said:


> And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
> A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.
> 
> It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings and throwing stones? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else. Dwarves being able to handle beer (and other posion) better because of their constitution? Not anymore.
> 
> "But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.



Sure, that is a fine way to look at it and I have similar tendencies.  However, WotC has taken the stance that is more fun to let people play what they want.  A PC is an *exception* version of any particular race, so why not let the Player determine how those exceptional qualities are expressed.

I mean I am all for racial limits (like a human can only get to STR 18, but  dragonborn could get to STR 20, etc.), but this concept is probably better for the game as a whole and I can also houserule racial limits (or bonus or penalties)


----------



## Micah Sweet

CleverNickName said:


> The only "old 5E stuff" that they've confirmed One D&D to work with are 5E adventures (and "supplements," which are deliberately undefined).  If the only 5th Edition D&D materials you own are the published adventures, you're right:  there's little to worry about.
> 
> But I've spent a great deal of money on the 5th Edition D&D books _and_ digital content through D&D Beyond and the Roll20 Marketplace.  It's unclear how much of my current material will be compatible (or accessible) in the future, and until I know for certain, I think it matters a great deal.



I also have a lot of 3PP material, which from the looks of this will also be in serious danger of being invalidated.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, ok, that works for cats. Not so much for like… I dunno, cows or something.



But the cow jumped OVER the moon! 



Charlaquin said:


> This is just a divide between different types of furry. I like my anthros to cleave very close to the animals they’re based on, because animals are freaking cool, and their behaviors and traits make for a really cool lens through which to reframe human behaviors and traits. But @Ruin Explorer is absolutely right, there’s a different subset of furries to whom “anthro but also an angel with magic spectral wings sometimes” is going to be everything they’ve ever wanted in an OC.




I agree that it would be better if there were a few options to choose from other than just wings (which is also kinda close to what Aasimar get.


----------



## SakanaSensei

This is really one of the best little looks into the future of DnD that I could have expected. Honestly, the only thing I was disappointed by was seeing that Bonus Actions will be sticking around: really wish they had felt free to crib the 3 Action economy from PF2E and adjust from there, but that's a different topic.

I'm very excited to start seeing some of the monster design that builds around this new paradigm. It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up against some of the better designed 3PP monster books like Tome of Foes or what we've been able to see so far from Flee, Mortals! My main gripe with 5E has always been combat, especially as a 4E baby. Fights are soooo long, and while they were in 4E too, at least they were mechanically interesting. If classes and monsters add some of that zhuzh back in, I'll be a happy camper.

Oh, and spell lists based on power source? Wonderful. Each class gets a power source, throw in a specialized list in the class features so they still get some of their unique spells, badda bing badda boom. Paladins get access to Divine and Paladin tagged spells, Clerics get Divine and Cleric tagged spells. Just feels a lot easier to follow, especially if they organize it well in the books and separate spells out by source first, and then level second.


----------



## Zaukrie

Micah Sweet said:


> I also have a lot of 3PP material, which from the looks of this will also be in serious danger of being invalidated.



That's why almost all the third party stuff I buy now are monsters and adventures. I can always use those.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> But the cow jumped OVER the moon!



 Touché


FitzTheRuke said:


> I agree that it would be better if there were a few options to choose from other than just wings (which is also kinda close to what Aasimar get.



Frankly, it’s weird that ardlings weren’t made a lineage of Aasimar, just like 2014 Tieflings were made one of three Tiefling lineages.


----------



## Zaukrie

SakanaSensei said:


> This is really one of the best little looks into the future of DnD that I could have expected. Honestly, the only thing I was disappointed by was seeing that Bonus Actions will be sticking around: really wish they had felt free to crib the 3 Action economy from PF2E and adjust from there, but that's a different topic.
> 
> I'm very excited to start seeing some of the monster design that builds around this new paradigm. It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up against some of the better designed 3PP monster books like Tome of Foes or what we've been able to see so far from Flee, Mortals! My main gripe with 5E has always been combat, especially as a 4E baby. Fights are soooo long, and while they were in 4E too, at least they were mechanically interesting. If classes and monsters add some of that zhuzh back in, I'll be a happy camper.
> 
> Oh, and spell lists based on power source? Wonderful. Each class gets a power source, throw in a specialized list in the class features so they still get some of their unique spells, badda bing badda boom. Paladins get access to Divine and Paladin tagged spells, Clerics get Divine and Cleric tagged spells. Just feels a lot easier to follow, especially if they organize it well in the books and separate spells out by source first, and then level second.



Stealing the three action thing would be awesome. I hope I remember to suggest that.


----------



## Ixal

dave2008 said:


> Sure, that is a fine way to look at it and I have similar tendencies.  However, WotC has taken the stance that is more fun to let people play what they want.  A PC is an *exception* version of any particular race, so why not let the Player determine how those exceptional qualities are expressed.
> 
> I mean I am all for racial limits (like a human can only get to STR 18, but  dragonborn could get to STR 20, etc.), but this concept is probably better for the game as a whole and I can also houserule racial limits (or bonus or penalties)



Again, thats what the attribute array is for.
Want to play a strong and clumsy elf? Dex is the dump stat and Str is the highest. Sure you will still be more dexterous than a clumsy human, but not as good as nearly any elf. To them you will be clumsy.
And you will overpower most elves, be equal to many humans but still struggle against strong orcs.
But even an exceptional elf is still an elf which comes with biological facts which includes trance, darkvision and better dexterity among other things.

In the end it comes down to 2 things.
1. People somehow thinking that different fictional races being different is somehow racist (see @Faolyn's post). Which strangely only seems to be a problem in fantasy, not in scifi. I haven't heard any complains about Vulcans.
2. People refusing to play anything not minmaxed with an 18 in the primary attribute which imo is not something you should cater to. Thats not role playing. No one is preventing them from playing an elf barbarian or orc wizard except their inability to play something not minmaxed.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Ixal said:


> Again, thats what the attribute array is for.
> Want to play a strong and clumsy elf? Dex is the dump stat and Str is the highest. Sure you will still be more dexterous than a clumsy human, but not as good as nearly any elf. To them you will be clumsy.
> And you will overpower most elves, be equal to many humans but still struggle against strong orcs.
> 
> In the end it comes down to 2 things.
> 1. People somehow thinking that different fictional races being different is somehow racist (see @Faolyn's post). Which strangely only seems to be a problem in fantasy, not in scifi. I haven't heard any complains about Vulcans.
> 2. People refusing to play anything not minmaxed with an 18 in the primary attribute which imo is not something you should cater to. Thats not role playing. No one is preventing them from playing an elf barbarian or orc wizard except their inability to play something not minmaxed.



I wanna play my goblin paladin and not suck and you. can't. stop. me. And papa WotC agrees.


----------



## Ixal

SakanaSensei said:


> I wanna play my goblin paladin and not suck and you. can't. stop. me. And papa WotC agrees.



Having a 16 as primary attribute isn't sucking and WotC would do well that instead of catering to minmaxers to always only take the most optimal choice to instead educate them to play a role and do what makes most sense from a role playing perspective even when its not the most optimal.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Haplo781 said:


> Ah yes, wizards get to break reality but fighters are bound by "guy at the gym"



Wizards break reality with magic.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Ixal said:


> Having a 16 as primary attribute isn't sucking. Only minmaxer think it is.



You do yourself a disservice by assuming everyone who likes floating ASIs (or background based ASIs) is just a filthy minmaxer. Most of my characters don't even start with 18s.


----------



## Ixal

SakanaSensei said:


> You do yourself a disservice by assuming everyone who likes floating ASIs (or background based ASIs) is just a filthy minmaxer. Most of my characters don't even start with 18s.



I have discussed ASI many times on this forum and always the defense for floting ASI will came down to "I want my 18" in the end.


----------



## Haplo781

Micah Sweet said:


> Wizards break reality with magic.



And martials can break reality by being incredibly strong/skilled.

There's really no rational argument against martials having nice things in a fantasy game.


----------



## Cadence

SakanaSensei said:


> You do yourself a disservice by assuming everyone who likes floating ASIs (or background based ASIs) is just a filthy minmaxer. Most of my characters don't even start with 18s.




Is there a particular benefit for the character from the floating ASI if they're  not going for the 18 or the easily increased 17?


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> And martials can break reality by being incredibly strong/skilled.
> 
> There's really no rational argument against martials having nice things in a fantasy game.




Nice Captain America level things? Or godlike (eg magical things) like Thor or Captain Marvel?


----------



## SakanaSensei

Cadence said:


> Is there a particular benefit for the character from the floating ASI if they're  not going for the 18 or the easily increased 17?



Narrative importance being put into how a character has lived their life instead of how they were born is the end of it, really, for me. I just also want to be competent while pulling off a character concept.


----------



## Ixal

SakanaSensei said:


> Narrative importance being put into how a character has lived their life instead of how they were born is the end of it, really, for me. I just also want to be competent while pulling off a character concept.



1. A -2 (which equals a -5% chance) doesn't make you incompetent (unless competent = optimized). Oh no, when rolling 100 times you fail 5 additional times (statistically). What incompetency! Literally unplayable.
2. Living your life = attribute array, not ASI.


----------



## TwoSix

Ixal said:


> Having a 16 as primary attribute isn't sucking and WotC would do well that instead of catering to minmaxers to always only take the most optimal choice to instead educate them to play a role and do what makes most sense from a role playing perspective even when its not the most optimal.



Yea, no.


----------



## Medic

Ixal said:


> People refusing to play anything not minmaxed with an 18 in the primary attribute which imo is not something you should cater to. Thats not role playing. No one is preventing them from playing an elf barbarian or orc wizard except their inability to play something not minmaxed.



Everyone else seems to talk up the "fun role-playing" aspect of floating ASIs and playing fast and loose with racial traits. I can't be the only one that sees the latest trend expand the opportunities for optimization. As an example, when Tasha's was released, I could make a dwarf wizard that has the highest starting Intelligence possible and comes with medium armor right out of the gate without having to sacrifice anything - something I could not do prior.


----------



## Cadence

SakanaSensei said:


> Narrative importance being put into how a character has lived their life instead of how they were born is the end of it, really, for me. I just also want to be competent while pulling off a character concept.




Why isn't where you decide to put your points with the point buy able to do narrative?  It feels odd to me that it matters if your Elf has a 16 Str because you put a 16 there, or because you put a 14+2 there.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why doing some things makes one better as a background.  (Being shat on as an urchin/ beggar makes one wise and quick feels like a message I dislike in real life.  Maybe being wise and quick let them survive better as an urchin?).

Is there a downside to just giving everyone a floating +1/+2 and letting them justify it however they want. (+2 Str from rumoured giant blood or being a blacksmith or just being big for no particular reason)


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> It matters because everything coming out from now on, including likely the bulk of 3PP material, will be replaced by the new presentation and format.  The 2014 5e will be erased effectively, because the new stuff will still be 5e officially.



Lucky you, you're playing Level Up anyway.


----------



## Azzy

Ixal said:


> 1. A -2 (which equals a -5% chance) doesn't make you incompetent (unless competent = optimized). Oh no, when rolling 100 times you fail 5 times more (statistically). What incompetency! Literally unplayable.
> 2. Living your life = attribute array, not ASI.



Look, this line of discussion has been done to death a million posts over. Please drop it.


----------



## Ixal

Medic said:


> Everyone else seems to talk up the "fun role-playing" aspect of floating ASIs and playing fast and loose with racial traits. I can't be the only one that sees the latest trend expand the opportunities for optimization. As an example, when Tasha's was released, I could make a dwarf wizard that has the highest starting Intelligence possible and comes with medium armor right out of the gate without having to sacrifice anything - something I could not do prior.



No, this is what happens. People who won't play anything without an 18 certainly won't pass up on this chance. But its hard to defend floating ASI with "I can optimize more". Only 1, maybe 2 posters in all the ASI discussions I have seen were honest enough and said they like floating ASI because they can optimize.
All others tried to argue that it "allows them to play different race/class combinations" which makes no sense as even with fixed ASI you can play all race/class combinations you want if you do without the 18.


----------



## Azzy

Medic said:


> Everyone else seems to talk up the "fun role-playing" aspect of floating ASIs and playing fast and loose with racial traits. I can't be the only one that sees the latest trend expand the opportunities for optimization. As an example, when Tasha's was released, I could make a dwarf wizard that has the highest starting Intelligence possible and comes with medium armor right out of the gate without having to sacrifice anything - something I could not do prior.



It can do both. Groovy.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think this proves that the changes are pretty minimal, all-in-all:

its the same g-d arguments as the past few years, like always. Almost with all the same actors...so nothing changed much, right?


----------



## Cadence

Were any of these changes things that are unexpected based on recent trends?

Thinking of the future UAs, are there any big things that have been telegraphed about the classes? Or are all of those changes likely much smaller?


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> Nice Captain America level things? Or godlike (eg magical things) like Thor or Captain Marvel?



Cú Chulainn. Hercules. Sun Wukong. Cloud Strife.


----------



## overgeeked

Haplo781 said:


> Cú Chulainn. Hercules. Sun Wukong.



Demigod. Demigod. God.


----------



## Kurotowa

Cadence said:


> Thinking of the future UAs, are there any big things that have been telegraphed about the classes? Or are all of those changes likely much smaller?



Nothing concrete. I'm predicting that martial classes will be getting "this is my special attack!" resources that are less random and explosive than the nerfed crits, but that's highly speculative. There's also the fact that Eldritch Blast isn't on the spell lists, which suggests they did the smart thing and folded it in as a proper Warlock class feature.

Beyond that is anybody's guess. Backwards compatibility says that classes will need to leave room for subclass features at the same level brackets as before, but most other things are up for grabs.


----------



## Haplo781

overgeeked said:


> Demigod. Demigod. God.



D&D characters are exceptional, but fine. Cloud Strife. Cecil Harvey. Bartz Klauser.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> Cú Chulainn. Hercules. Sun Wukong.




I kind of liked the way Pathfinder 1e had the Mythic Adventures set of rules for those who wanted to play demi-gods.  A blacksmith rising to the peak of human power seems like a very different story than a demi-god reaching towards full godhood, and it isn't clear to me that a single set of rules can do both well.


----------



## Al2O3

Bagpuss said:


> *Slowed Condition *implies movement is tracked in individual feat, rather than 5ft increments, not sure why they would decide to do that.



I suggest you check the 2014 PHB, page 182.

From Difficult terrain: "You move at half speed in difficult terrain--moving 1 foot in difficult terrain costs 2 feet of speed"
From Climbing, swimming and crawling: "each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain".

Movement has been tracked in individual feet since 2014.

There is a variant rule in a sidebar on p 192 of the 2014 PHB. With those VARIANT rules, you do track speed in 5-foot segments. This is as standard as Variant Humans and equipment sizes.


----------



## TwoSix

Medic said:


> Everyone else seems to talk up the "fun role-playing" aspect of floating ASIs and playing fast and loose with racial traits. I can't be the only one that sees the latest trend expand the opportunities for optimization. As an example, when Tasha's was released, I could make a dwarf wizard that has the highest starting Intelligence possible and comes with medium armor right out of the gate without having to sacrifice anything - something I could not do prior.



Yep.  And that still doesn't make dwarf the best race for wizards.  It just expands the list of races that are top-tier.  It _gives options_.  

I can't believe we're still arguing about removing ASIs after 2 years.  It's kind of ridiculous at this point.


----------



## ehren37

Micah Sweet said:


> Wizards break reality with magic.



They break it with spells. Monks show you can incorporate magic without spells. Gimme an armored mythic warrior from the book of 9 swords.

Fighters should be incorporating magic into their training and techniques. Chugging dragon blood, using elemental oils to strengthen their skin. Them not using any magic, which is the fundamental tech of D&D world, is like a modern soldier not using tech.

"But muh low magic". D&D is not low magic as written. Casters break the laws of reality more often than they poop.


----------



## dave2008

Ixal said:


> Again, thats what the attribute array is for.



This is essentially an extension of the attribute array. Which I am fine with. I mean not everyone uses the array and it is nice to a bit customizing on top of that.  I would also be fine if stat bonus went away in character creation and it was part of the array (the old elite array) or roll.  Same difference really. Except, buy linking it to a background you are creating a story for why your character is exception. Which can be a good thing for some more than others, but I don't think it hurts but a very few.


Ixal said:


> But even an exceptional elf is still an elf which comes with biological facts which includes trance, darkvision and better dexterity among other things.



Except that dexterity, if it is still a thing at all, is not expressed by attribute scores.  I'm OK with that.  Hopefully allows them to give races something more interesting than a stat bonus, which is kinda boring.


Ixal said:


> In the end it comes down to 2 things.
> 1. People somehow thinking that different fictional races being different is somehow racist (see @Faolyn's post). Which strangely only seems to be a problem in fantasy, not in scifi. I haven't heard any complains about Vulcans.
> 2. People refusing to play anything not minmaxed with an 18 in the primary attribute which imo is not something you should cater to. Thats not role playing. No one is preventing them from playing an elf barbarian or orc wizard except their inability to play something not minmaxed.



IMO, the issue is balance.  WotC, and most players it seems, want races to be balanced mechanically. If you let go it that notion you have no issue with a minotaur with max Str 20 and halfling with a max strength of 16. It doesn't have to min./max. types, many players just don't want to feel they are being left behind.

All in all it is not a lot to get upset about IMO and it makes sense for a big-tent game like D&D to cater to the broadest group of people. If you want racial bonuses, penalties, or limits then houserule them into your game. If your group balks at it, then maybe you shouldn't have them in the first place.  FYI, my group accepts racial limits - it can work.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> I kind of liked the way Pathfinder 1e had the Mythic Adventures set of rules for those who wanted to play demi-gods.  A blacksmith rising to the peak of human power seems like a very different story than a demi-god reaching towards full godhood, and it isn't clear to me that a single set of rules can do both well.



The kinds of stories D&D emulates are more "blacksmith finds out he's a demigod" or "orphan boy pulls out the Sword in the Stone" than either of those.


----------



## dave2008

ehren37 said:


> They break it with spells. Monks show you can incorporate magic without spells. Why are fighters so lame as to not incorporate the basic tool of their society into their training regimens? It would be like a modern soldier not using technology because they aren't an engineer.



I am not really familiar with the class, but isn't that the eldritch knight subclass?


----------



## TwoSix

DND_Reborn said:


> Which is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable _anyway_ so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.
> 
> It's like, when with the devs _finally_ get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...
> 
> Anyway, bowing out.



I do agree that "moving" them to backgrounds is fundamentally a nothingburger compared to the Tasha's rules.  If the ASIs are floating, that means they aren't connected to any mechanical entity.  That's kind of the point of "floating", you justify them with whatever narrative you see fit.


----------



## Cadence

ehren37 said:


> They break it with spells. Monks show you can incorporate magic without spells. Why are fighters so lame as to not incorporate the basic tool of their society into their training regimens? It would be like a modern soldier not using technology because they aren't an engineer.




Like magic swords, and magic armor, and ... ?


----------



## RoughCoronet0

So I'm looking over the UA and collecting my first impressions and opinions. I'll start with the races (which I'm sort of surprised they are still going with race as the term to use but I was never bothered one way or the other about what to call them. Race, ancestries, origins, lineages, species, all work for me.

*Races*

*Humans* - I cant help but feel they need just a little something more. I know they get a free feat and inspiration every long rest. It might be just because I'm not fully wrapping my head around the current strength of this race, I don't know. I just feel like maybe even just one extra language known or a free tool proficiency would round it out in my eyes. It weird right?


*Ardlings* - I'm going to say it, I love the idea of this race. Aasimar are the angel touched race, but never felt like it covered the wide array of celestial creatures that could be pulled from as an ancestry. Not to mention that they are basically just celestial humans most of the time. The Ardlings encourage having ancestries from celestials like the more animal like Archons, the Guardinals, the Animal Lords of the Beastlands, and the various other animal like celestials that exist in the Upper Planes. I do wonder if it would be possible to give a few more options to choose from the match a wider range of animal types, but otherwise I love this so much!


*Dragonborn* - I don't actually mind the idea of there being a more standard version of the race and having the Fizban Dragonborns being ones that have a closer tie to a particular draconic ancestor then normal Dragonborn. However, as it stands this iteration isn't doing it for me. First I think the breath weapon should be reverted back to the version used in Fizban, and this Dragonborn needs some other stand out feature to really distinguish it from the others. Otherwise, reprinting the Fizban Dragonborns would be the way to go I feel.


*Dwarf* - While I am a bit sad to see Hill and Mountain Dwarves combined into one (mostly because I wanted to see how they could more clearly distinguish them from each other), I like the changes to the race over all. No real complaints here.


*Elves *- While a bit clunky due to shoving three subraces into one race's feature listing, my only real critique is that they should update these elves with the same trance feature as the Shadar-kai, Eladrin, and Sea-Elves from MPMM. Then it would be just right in my eyes.


*Gnomes* - I feel like, just like with the Human and Dragonborn, the Gnomes just need a little extra something to round out their abilities. either something that is standard to all Gnomes, or something added on to the subrace. Maybe a Nature, Survival, or Animal Handling proficiency for the Forest Gnomes and a Tool Proficiency for the Rock Gnomes. I don't know, just something more I guess.


*Halflings* - If you can combine the three Elves and two Gnomes into one race to give customization, then I feel like you can do the same for the Halflings easily. Have the Lightfoot Halflings gain something like advantage on stealth a number of times equal prof bonus or a bonus action hide or something along those lines, give the Stout Halflings resistance to poison, and give the Ghostwise Halflings a 30 ft. range telepathy. Then it would be perfect for me.


*Orcs* - I think this race is solid. I could see it getting maybe something else, like a a revised version of the Savage Attacks feature from Half-Orcs as they seem to be going away, but I don't think they really need it even if I would like to see more. Maybe I just really like each race having at least 4 distinct features (not including Dark-vision that is). Overall, I'm fairly satisfied.


*Tieflings* - I'm overall happy with this race and it being expanded to encompass all the fiendish beings of the lower planes. I am curious if a flying variant will be added. I will always feel like another feature will add to this but once again I don't think this races really needs it, I'd just like to have another feature is all. Otherwise, good all around.


----------



## cbwjm

Ixal said:


> No, this is what happens. People who won't play anything without an 18 certainly won't pass up on this chance. But its hard to defend floating ASI with "I can optimize more". Only 1, maybe 2 posters in all the ASI discussions I have seen were honest enough and said they like floating ASI because they can optimize.
> All others tried to argue that it "allows them to play different race/class combinations" which makes no sense as even with fixed ASI you can play all race/class combinations you want if you do without the 18.



Where did 18 come from? Most of the time I see people wanting to start with a 16, that +3 bonus is typically the highest you can start with unless you roll and get high enough to boost to an 18. Personally, I'm fine with starting with a +2, but a lot of people really do want to start with a +3.


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> I am not really familiar with the class, but isn't that the eldritch knight subclass?



Eh, no.

That's "you are a fighter who can cast a few wizard spells." Not "You use magic to enhance your fighting abilities.",


----------



## Arilyn

Most of the changes seem pretty good. I like having background feats over the mechanically and narratively weak old background features. Inspiration is more solidly explained and implemented. 

I don't like how mixed races are handled. Having all the mechanics from one and just cosmetic bits from the other is uninteresting. 

And "One D&D?" I really dislike this name. I dislike it a lot! 

Overall, I think it's heading in a good direction, but I feel that I'm going to continue prefer Level Up.


----------



## Ixal

cbwjm said:


> Where did 18 come from? Most of the time I see people wanting to start with a 16, that +3 bonus is typically the highest you can start with unless you roll and get high enough to boost to an 18. Personally, I'm fine with starting with a +2, but a lot of people really do want to start with a +3.



Highest attribute from the standard array +2.
When you are satisfied with a 16 then there is no reason to have floating ASI as you can put the 16 anywhere you want and there are no penalties anymore.
In all ASI discussions the pro-floating people in the end always said that "they want to play a race/class combination" and not suck, and sucking for them was not having the 18 you can only get with the correct +2 ASI.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> Eh, no.
> 
> That's "you are a fighter who can cast a few wizard spells." Not "You use magic to enhance your fighting abilities.",



OK, so more of psi-knight. Do we have one of those yet.

Of course isn't that exactly what the monk is?


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> The kinds of stories D&D emulates are more "blacksmith finds out he's a demigod" or "orphan boy pulls out the Sword in the Stone" than either of those.




I'm not used to seeing D&D games that do either of those.  It feels more like the blacksmith gradually advances from being a schlub to being really tough by going on lots of Adventures (like Conan?) with no revelation of divine parenthood.  The orphan gradually advances from being a schlub to being really tough with a bunch of progressively better magic items along the way and no big moment of becoming a future king because of one.

(The sword in the stone didn't particularly do much for Arthur's fighting prowess, did it?)


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> OK, so more of psi-knight. Do we have one of those yet.




Yes. It's not very impressive.



dave2008 said:


> Of course isn't that exactly what the monk is?




I mean, kinda but not really.


----------



## dave2008

Ixal said:


> Highest attribute from the standard array +2.
> When you are satisfied with a 16 then there is no reason to have floating ASI as you can put the 16 anywhere you want and there are no penalties anymore.
> In all ASI discussions the pro-floating people in the end always said that "they want to play a race/class combination" and not suck, and sucking for them was not having the 18 you can only get with the correct +2 ASI.



Not if your max ability score is a 16   

A house role I have thought about using to make 5e line up more with the bonus structure of 1e.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> I mean, kinda but not really.



Why not?  I'm not real familiar, but I will check it out now.

EDIT: Monk has the concept for a magical knight, it just needs to be tweak to allow weapons and armor. I would be doable I think.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> I'm not used to seeing D&D games that do either of those.  It feels more like the blacksmith gradually advances from being a schlub to being really tough by going on lots of Adventures (like Conan?) with no revelation of divine parenthood.  The orphan gradually advances from being a schlub to being really tough with a bunch of progressively better magic items along the way and no big moment of becoming a future king because of one.



D&D games and the fiction D&D is pulling from aren't the same. And that disparity is actually my problem.



Cadence said:


> (The sword in the stone didn't particularly do much for Arthur's fighting prowess, did it?)



The sword literally just proved he was the rightful king. Excalibur inflicted wounds that wouldn't heal.


----------



## Smackpixi

overgeeked said:


> Is it a bit of a red flag to anyone else that the playtest material drops today and the survey opens on Sept 1st? Literally two weeks from now. That doesn't fill me with confidence that 1) people will actually playtest these things, or that; 2) feedback will actually matter.



Their “play tests” are not really that, they’re periods of time for the community to discuss so they can see what take(s) become most popular.  Because what matters most is if the new ideas make people happy, are not broken being second, actually improving play not so important.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> D&D games and the fiction D&D is pulling from aren't the same. And that disparity is actually my problem.



D&D players pull from many different fictions.  And it emulates some of those really well.


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> Why not?  I'm not real familiar, but I will check it out now.



A monk with a sword is going to play very differently from a guy who can, for instance, make his enemies cower in terror with a battlecry, or move so fast he's effectively teleporting from point A to point B and hit every enemy in between with a sweep of his sword.


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> D&D players pull from many different fictions.  And it emulates some of those really well.



Weirdly though it pulls casters from high fantasy and martials from gritty historical fiction


----------



## Ixal

dave2008 said:


> Not if your max ability score is a 16
> 
> A house role I have thought about using to make 5e line up more with the bonus structure of 1e.



Then people would complain that they "need" floating ASI to have two 16 where they want by putting their second highest stat in their +2 and use their free 16 for a secondary attribute.

Its not a rule problem, its a mentality problem. Too many people think the "role" in "role playing" is not "the runaway elf slave who grew up in a mine working every day" but "Two handed axe fighter going into great weapon master" and WotC is actively catering that.


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> ETA: Is it a bit of a red flag to anyone else that the playtest material drops today and the survey opens on Sept 1st? Literally two weeks from now. That doesn't fill me with confidence that 1) people will actually playtest these things, or that; 2) feedback will actually matter.



I mean the Next playtest had a similar format and it underwent a lot of changes in its development.  Typical UA surveys are 1-2 weeks.  Also, they have internal playtest too.  Some of the posters here even participate in them (under NDA of course)


----------



## CleverNickName

I hope that Backgrounds are more important in the next edition.  I think they should be just as important as Race, if not more so.


----------



## cbwjm

Ixal said:


> Highest attribute from the standard array +2.
> When you are satisfied with a 16 then there is no reason to have floating ASI as you can put the 16 anywhere you want and there are no penalties anymore.
> In all ASI discussions the pro-floating people in the end always said that "they want to play a race/class combination" and not suck, and sucking for them was not having the 18 you can only get with the correct +2 ASI.



I thought the highest you could get with the standard array/point buy + ability score adjustment is 17? Have they changed it somewhere and I've totally missed it...


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> Weirdly though it pulls casters from high fantasy and martials from gritty historical fantasy



I don't disagree with that point, but by martials I assume you mean fighters? Because rangers, barbarians, bards, and monks are all pretty magical IMO and I consider them martials. Obviously, 4e did it differently as well so D&D can pull form different sources.

D&D fighters pull from high fantasy in having magic gear.


----------



## Medic

TwoSix said:


> Yep.  And that still doesn't make dwarf the best race for wizards.  It just expands the list of races that are top-tier.  It _gives options_.
> 
> I can't believe we're still arguing about removing ASIs after 2 years.  It's kind of ridiculous at this point.



The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.

And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> D&D games and the fiction D&D is pulling from aren't the same. And that disparity is actually my problem.






Haplo781 said:


> Weirdly though it pulls casters from high fantasy and martials from gritty historical fantasy




Is the problem more that it's pulling from War Games seasoned with an eclectic mix of whatever Gygax was reading and watching in the 60s and 70s?

What high fantasy are it's casters from?  Where besides the first three volumes of Dying Earth are casters limited to a few spells a day that they can cram into their memory?   Which fantasy with really powerful casters has them matched in exploits by a non-magic studying guy with a sword?  

***

By historical fantasy, do you mean older fantasy novels?


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> I don't disagree with that point, but by martials I assume you mean fighters? Because rangers, barbarians, bards, and monks are all pretty magical IMO and I consider them martials. Obviously, 4e did it differently as well so D&D can pull form different sources.
> 
> D&D fighters pull from high fantasy in having magic gear.



Except everyone gets magic gear. If it were exclusive to non-casting classes that would be a different thing entirely.


----------



## jmartkdr2

dave2008 said:


> I am not really familiar with the class, but isn't that the eldritch knight subclass?



You'd think so, but the printed EK doesn't learn any spells that enhance attacks - just defenses and some spells that will always be worse attack options than using a weapon.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> A monk with a sword is going to play very differently from a guy who can, for instance, make his enemies cower in terror with a battlecry, or move so fast he's effectively teleporting from point A to point B and hit every enemy in between with a sweep of his sword.



Yes, I checked the monk out.  It is not set up for that, but the Ki chasis would be a good to model that type of fighter on.

Personally I don't want that type of fighter, but we don't like high magic settings either. So the game works for us. I've often thought they should make a hard split at 10th level. Everything 10 and below is mundane. From 11th above your getting in the magic warrior / super hero abilities like what you describe.


----------



## TwoSix

Medic said:


> The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?



It's certainly my incentive.  I played a bunch of halfling spellcasters in 3e, I'm glad 5e lets me play a wizard with the necessary starting 16 Int again.


----------



## dave2008

Ixal said:


> Then people would complain that they "need" floating ASI to have two 16 where they want by putting their second highest stat in their +2 and use their free 16 for a secondary attribute.
> 
> Its not a rule problem, its a mentality problem. Too many people think the "role" in "role playing" is not "the runaway elf slave who grew up in a mine working every day" but "Two handed axe fighter going into great weapon master" and WotC is actively catering that.



Agreed, that is why a play with people who don't have that mentality.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> Is the problem more that it's pulling from War Games seasoned with an eclectic mix of whatever Gygax was reading and watching in the 60s and 70s?
> 
> What high fantasy are it's casters from?  Where besides the first three volumes of Dying Earth are casters limited to a few spells a day that they can cram into their memory?   Which fantasy with really powerful casters has them matched in exploits by a non-magic studying guy with a sword?
> 
> ***
> 
> By historical fantasy, do you mean older fantasy novels?



I mean wizards get to be Dr. Strange and fighters are stuck being Ned Stark.

if fighters got to be Thor, or wizards were limited to Melisandre levels of power, that would be consistent.


----------



## cbwjm

Medic said:


> The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?



I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs anymore, part of me would have liked a middle ground where a race gained +2 to a single score and then had a couple of +1s to distribute how they wanted, but ultimately I'm fine with the current system, especially now that I've seen some of the playtest material showing that they're getting rid of mountain dwarf which is now one of the least interesting subraces to me to the point where I was thinking of getting rid of the subrace in my games and just using hill dwarf for both of them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?




These rules are for the minuscule fraction of characters that are player characters. They don’t define the whole race.

If you think your PC should be representative of a race that is, for example, very wise, then put your +2 into Wisdom. Solved.

Other people/tables can put their bonuses wherever they want, for whatever concept they imagine, and it has absolutely zero impact on you.


----------



## Remathilis

Haplo781 said:


> A monk with a sword is going to play very differently from a guy who can, for instance, make his enemies cower in terror with a battlecry, or move so fast he's effectively teleporting from point A to point B and hit every enemy in between with a sweep of his sword.



What's the difference between that and an eldritch knight who knows Fear and Steel Wind Strike? Isn't just "magic, but non-magical" at that point?


----------



## Ixal

Haplo781 said:


> I mean wizards get to be Dr. Strange and fighters are stuck being Ned Stark.



Even when fighters are Hulk, punching people in the face only gets you so far when compared to being able to bend reality.


----------



## ehren37

Cadence said:


> Nice Captain America level things? Or godlike (eg magical things) like Thor or Captain Marvel?



Captain America is more of a warlord type IMO. Given the gonzo level of magic, I'd put him around 12-15th level

Characters who don't get to repick their superpowers on a daily basis should be more powerful than those that do. Versatility needs a higher price.


overgeeked said:


> Demigod. Demigod. God.



We play a game where casters get to make a pocket dimension at level 3.


----------



## Krachek

I just realize the change for grappling and shoving.
it no more use athletic, and thus dont benefit from expertise.
It take a to hit, and the DC is based on strength and proficiency bonus.
and the grappled target get a free escape attempt at the end of its turn.


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> What's the difference between that and an eldritch knight who knows Fear and Steel Wind Strike? Isn't just "magic, but non-magical" at that point?



When your solution to "martials are weaker than casters" is "give them a few spells", something is very wrong with the game's base assumptions.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> I mean wizards get to be Dr. Strange and fighters are stuck being Ned Stark.



I'll have to recheck out the 5e  spell list and what the magic items do...  that doesn't seem to match with the last movie with Strange in it that I watched.

But sure, figuring out what to do with the really high level adventurers seems to be a perennial D&D problem.  It feels like its also a problem in a lot of super-hero comics and movies too.  (My favorite in comics were those years where Thor would only show up when it was really needed for the plot, because he warped things otherwise and was better off on his own cosmic adventures).


----------



## Ixal

Bill Zebub said:


> These rules are for the minuscule fraction of characters that are player characters. They don’t define the whole race.
> 
> If you think your PC should be representative of a race that is, for example, very wise, then put your +2 into Wisdom. Solved.
> 
> Other people/tables can put there bonuses wherever they want, for whatever concept they imagine, and it has absolutely zero impact on you.



Either a race is very wise (high amount of mirror neurons or whatever) then it also applies to exceptional PCs of that race or the race is not wise.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Haplo781 said:


> Except everyone gets magic gear. If it were exclusive to non-casting classes that would be a different thing entirely.



The difference is that gear does one of a few things:

1. Makes your weapon attacks a lot better 
2. makes your spells a wee bit better
3. Lets you do magic stuff

The third is helpful for casters, because it lets the do a bit more magic, but transformational for non-magic-classes because it lets them do any magic at all.

Going form flying three times a day to 4 times a day is nice. Going form 0 to 1 is a massive impact.

(In practice, it doesn't take much in the way of magic items to keep things balanced enough unless the players have a mentality of competing with each other that overshadows the rest of the game)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> That makes sense. I was a little surprised at your negative reaction, as these seem like changes I would have guessed you would mostly be in favor of. Personally I don’t love _everything_ in this UA, but I do love the general direction, and I’d say most of the changes look positive to me. My biggest gripes are the changes to nat 1s and 20s (which are easy to ignore) and the Aardling race, which I low-key hate. But, I can accept that I’m just not the target audience for them.



Yeah I really like a lot of it, and the stuff I dislike (nat 1s and 20s, crits, halflings, removing half-folk, etc, is fairly unlikely to survive IMO. 


Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, Stealth proficiency in place of poison resistance or the preternatural ability to hide behind Medium and larger creatures feels like a huge nerf. Though I can see wanting to change Naturally Stealthy since so many DMs outright refuse to let it work the way it  clearly says it does (and same for Mask of the Wild), replacing it with Stealth proficiency is just incredibly disappointing.



Agreed. If this makes it to print, I think most halfling players will just use the older version. 


Micah Sweet said:


> It matters because everything coming out from now on, including likely the bulk of 3PP material, will be replaced by the new presentation and format.  The 2014 5e will be erased effectively, because the new stuff will still be 5e officially.



This seems extremely unlikely.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> I'll have to recheck out the 5e  spell list and what the magic items do...  that doesn't seem to match with the last movie with Strange in it that I watched.
> 
> But sure, figuring out what to do with the really high level adventurers seems to be a perennial D&D problem.  It feels like its also a problem in a lot of super-hero comics and movies too.  (My favorite in comics were those years where Thor would only show up when it was really needed for the plot, because he warped things otherwise and was better off on his own cosmic adventures).



You're right.

Strange only wishes he could do what a D&D wizard does.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Ixal said:


> Then people would complain that they "need" floating ASI to have two 16 where they want by putting their second highest stat in their +2 and use their free 16 for a secondary attribute.
> 
> Its not a rule problem, its a mentality problem. Too many people think the "role" in "role playing" is not "the runaway elf slave who grew up in a mine working every day" but "Two handed axe fighter going into great weapon master" and WotC is actively catering that.



And if the player in question wants to play a two-handed axe fighter going for great weapon master who also happens to be a runaway elf slave who grew up in a mine working all day?

Roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive - the only thing locking starting ASIs to race choice does is force optimizers to choose between the two. Floating ASIs give people who like both the option to engage in both without being forced to weigh their desire for system mastery against their desire to try out a race/class combo that would have previously been considered suboptimal.


----------



## dave2008

jmartkdr2 said:


> You'd think so, but the printed EK doesn't learn any spells that enhance attacks - just defenses and some spells that will always be worse attack options than using a weapon.



Yes, really the paladin is the magic knight now that I think about it.  That is probably more @Haplo781 's speed.


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> Yes, really the paladin is the magic knight now that I think about it.  That is probably more @Haplo781 's speed.



No, I want a fighter who gets to be as cool as the other classes. Not a guy who gets his powers from a god.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
The first playtest options, and thus this thread, are about character origins.  

Not classes.  Not the magic/martial divide.

Please bring it back on topic.  Thanks, all.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Remathilis said:


> What's the difference between that and an eldritch knight who knows Fear and Steel Wind Strike? Isn't just "magic, but non-magical" at that point?



Fear is tough to learn because it isn't an abjuration or evocation. Plus the DC is likely to be low since it's int-based which is a tertiary stat at best (con is much more useful

Steel wind strike is fifth level and therefore unavailable without multiclassing.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> I have discussed ASI many times on this forum and always the defense for floting ASI will came down to "I want my 18" in the end.




That sounds, to me, more like the strawman put up by people who hate any change because it reminds them that the hobby has grown and doesn’t cater to their demographic anymore. It’s not an argument used by most people (I would say “anybody” but I can’t guarantee that’s true) who want to get rid of racial ASIs.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> Either a race is very wise (high amount of mirror neurons or whatever) then it also applies to exceptional PCs of that race or the race is not wise.




Um, no. That just fails at basic statistics.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Haplo781 said:


> And martials can break reality by being incredibly strong/skilled.
> 
> There's really no rational argument against martials having nice things in a fantasy game.



Depends on what fantasy means to you.  It seems to me that to you it means, "literally anything is possible, and reality as we Earth humans understand it has no meaning".  That's not a world, even a fantasy one, that I want to play in.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> When your solution to "martials are weaker than casters" is "give them a few spells", something is very wrong with the game's base assumptions.



If you're saying a fighter moves so fast it is like he is teleporting, that is casting a spell by a different name.  It is just simpler solution to give the fighter spells. 

I am not saying it is better, just simpler.  I actually think there should be less spell casters period.  Make wizards the only spell casters and everyone else has magic that isn't spells. That would be the way to do it in my book. Or, the AIME way and get rid of magic and just go mundane.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Lucky you, you're playing Level Up anyway.



I play Level Up with added third party material, and hope to God they don't change LU to conform to this.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Haplo781 said:


> D&D characters are exceptional, but fine. Cloud Strife. Cecil Harvey. Bartz Klauser.



Cloud Strife is the Final Fantasy guy, I think?  Who are the other two?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Micah Sweet said:


> Cloud Strife is the Final Fantasy guy, I think? Who are the other two?



Other lead characters from Final Fantasy.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> And martials can break reality by being incredibly strong/skilled.
> 
> There's really no rational argument against martials having nice things in a fantasy game.



It depends what you mean by "nice things." I think they get nice things in 5e, clearly you do not.  I liked 4e, which I assume you think qualifies for the nice things department, but I just don't want to play fighters that exaggerated anymore.  I like most PCs to be ground in what I can do and I can see people doing. It is just more enjoyable to me.  Though perhaps my enjoyment is not a reasonable argument for playing a game. It is really the only reason I play the game, so...


----------



## Micah Sweet

ehren37 said:


> They break it with spells. Monks show you can incorporate magic without spells. Gimme an armored mythic warrior from the book of 9 swords.
> 
> Fighters should be incorporating magic into their training and techniques. Chugging dragon blood, using elemental oils to strengthen their skin. Them not using any magic, which is the fundamental tech of D&D world, is like a modern soldier not using tech.
> 
> "But muh low magic". D&D is not low magic as written. Casters break the laws of reality more often than they poop.



You show fighters incorporating magic into their style, and I'm on board.


----------



## HammerMan

Magister Ludorum said:


> magically pulling enemies across the board).



Martialey 

Not magical. Martial.


----------



## Ixal

Bill Zebub said:


> That sounds, to me, more like the strawman put up by people who hate any change because it reminds them that the hobby has grown and doesn’t cater to their demographic anymore. It’s not an argument used by most people (I would say “anybody” but I can’t guarantee that’s true) who want to get rid of racial ASIs.




Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic. No matter your background you have your ASI the same way you have darkvision or two eyes.
Background are for things you learn like skills, languages and proficiencies. A noble will likely learn etiquette or diplomacy. But he might still have to struggle with a Habsburg jaw. He doesn't get more charismatic just for being a noble. And a elf noble and orc noble would still differ in strength and dexterity on account of being a elf and orc instead of being exactly the same on account of being a noble.

And to represent that PCs are exceptional you have the stat array which is vastly superior to what NPCs get. And that also represents training and apitude which goes on top of biological properties and don't replace them.

Basically:
Race -> ASI, darkvision, other biological features
Background -> Skills, proficiencies, language


----------



## Cadence

HammerMan said:


> Martialey
> 
> Not magical. Martial.



Do the NPC bad guys get to do that to the PC ones too?


----------



## Haplo781

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> The first playtest options, and thus this thread, are about character origins.
> 
> Not classes.  Not the magic/martial divide.
> 
> Please bring it back on topic.  Thanks, all.



Since everyone seems to have missed it the first time.


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> Except everyone gets magic gear. If it were exclusive to non-casting classes that would be a different thing entirely.



I'm just stating the traditional D&D approach to the issue.  Not saying it doesn't have issues too.


----------



## HammerMan

Haplo781 said:


> Ah yes, wizards get to break reality but fighters are bound by "guy at the gym"



Not if we all tell them to change it


----------



## Umbran

Ixal said:


> I have discussed ASI many times on this forum and always the defense for floting ASI will came down to "I want my 18" in the end.






Bill Zebub said:


> That sounds, to me, more like the strawman put up by people who hate any change because it reminds them that the hobby has grown and doesn’t cater to their demographic anymore.




*Mod Note:*
Both of you are characterizing the _speaker_, in order to dismiss them, rather than address the content of the speech.

That's textbook ad hominem.

Stop it.  If the only way you can make your argument is to trash people who don't agree with you, leave the thread now.


----------



## Cadence

Ixal said:


> Believe what you want, but in all discussions the defense of floating ASI always was that it "allows" one to play different race/class combinations and then a lot of avoiding to answer how they were prevented from playing this combination before until they started with the common "the character would suck without an optimized attribute" argument you have seen here.
> 
> Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic. No matter your background you have your ASI the same way you have darkvision or two eyes.
> Background are for things you learn like skills, languages and proficiencies. A noble will likely learn etiquette or diplomacy. But he might still have to struggle with a Habsburg jaw. He doesn't get more charismatic just for being a noble.




Athletes don't get stronger or more enduring by being in the gym?  People don't get smarter by being read to young or continually doing intellectually challenging things?


----------



## dave2008

Haplo781 said:


> No, I want a fighter who gets to be as cool as the other classes. Not a guy who gets his powers from a god.



I mean that is just fluff. Mechanically a paladin is just as cool as other classes if doing magical things is your definition of cool


----------



## Cadence

I haven't used feats in 5e yet.  Do any of the feat changes impact what might be done with the classes in upcoming UAs?  Will adding levels to feats greatly change how they are used in play?


----------



## ehren37

Cadence said:


> Like magic swords, and magic armor, and ... ?



If they were built into the fighter's class, sure. Or if say, they increased the "plus" of everything by 1 when using it. They don't use magic arms and armor better than a town guard, which is the problem. They're a schmuck with slightly bigger numbers.

Sorry, missed the mod note. Will bring it around.

I hope magic equipment is assumed and able to be purchased going forward. Gold being more or less useless is an issue IMO, and lack of magic gear impacts those who depend on it more.


----------



## Ixal

Cadence said:


> Athletes don't get stronger or more enduring by being in the gym?  People don't get smarter by being read to young or continually doing intellectually challenging things?



Being smart allows you to do intellectually challenging things. And while you need to train to be an athlete (putting high values into physical scores in D&D), without the right genetics you won't get to the top.
And that is within the same race. Now add different races with vastly different biologies. Imagine if gorillas were sentient. No matter how well a human trains, a equally well trained gorilla will be stronger. Thats what racial ASI represents. A human would not be equal to a sentient gorilla, even when both have the same athlete background.


----------



## Greg K

Cadence said:


> I kind of liked the way Pathfinder 1e had the Mythic Adventures set of rules for those who wanted to play demi-gods.  A blacksmith rising to the peak of human power seems like a very different story than a demi-god reaching towards full godhood, and it isn't clear to me that a single set of rules can do both well.



I have long felt that D&D should have a separate supplement for those wanting to play demi-gods and gods , one for anime influence/tropes, etc.


----------



## Faolyn

Cadence said:


> You didn't have to did you? You could have made it your dump stat and been much less dextrous than a stereotypical elf, right? Even after the old style ASI.



But why should I have to put _any _bonus in that stat if I don't want to?



Cadence said:


> You could have made str one you maxed out in initial character creation right, and been much stronger than an average member of the stereotypically strong races?
> 
> ----
> 
> But anyway, I don't particularly see the point of requiring them to go with a background either.  Why can't my outrageously strong character have decided to be a scholar, instead of developing the strength by doing something physical?



That's true, and that's why I prefer the Level Up way, where it's +1 fixed/+1 floating. So you can have an outrageously strong guy who gained some book learning.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> No matter how well a human trains, a equally well trained gorilla will be stronger. *Thats what racial ASI represents. *A human would not be equal to a sentient gorilla, even when both have the same athlete background.




But these aren’t racial ASIs.  They are background ASIs.

Soooo…..


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> But these aren’t racial ASIs.  They are background ASIs.
> 
> Soooo…..




Well, they're proposed to be background ASIs instead of racial one's, and WotC is seeking comments on everything, right?

I'm going to comment that I wish they just let the ASIs float and folks could justify it however they want.


----------



## Faolyn

Posted too soon.


----------



## Azzy

Ixal said:


> Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic.



No, they're not.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> Depends on what fantasy means to you.  It seems to me that to you it means, "literally anything is possible, and reality as we Earth humans understand it has no meaning".  That's not a world, even a fantasy one, that I want to play in.



There’s a line somewhere between "literally anything is possible, and reality as we Earth humans understand it has no meaning" and “my character who is ostensibly a hero in a fantastical world just feels like Some Guy who happens to own a sword.” Where exactly that line is varies from person to person, and it tends to be a rather fine line wherever it lies.

Personally, I think the best benchmark to use is heroes of myth like Heracles. I think that should be the benchmark for high level (by which I mean like 11+) martial characters. YMMV.


----------



## Ixal

Bill Zebub said:


> But these aren’t racial ASIs.  They are background ASIs.
> 
> Soooo…..



Background ASI do not make sense.
Your training and life choices are already reflected by the standard array and a background doesn't necessarily lead to an ASI. A good for nothing ne'er do well would not build any abilities with his lifestyle and a noble is not automatically charismatic.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Azzy said:


> No, they're not. You're just making things up.



I mean he is making up something that could make (and has made) a plausible mechanical premise for an RPG. 

But it’s not true in a universal sense.


----------



## Cadence

Azzy said:


> No, they're not. You're just making things up.



I mean, it kind of feels like reaching the human maximum takes both?  (I'm not going to be the next Michael Jordan no matter how hard I work, and it feels like Michael Jordan wouldn't have been  MVP material if he went out for the chess team or had taken up video gaming full time instead of working out for basketball).


----------



## Azzy

Bill Zebub said:


> I mean he is making up something that could make (and has made) a plausible mechanical premise for an RPG.



It could.


Bill Zebub said:


> But it’s not true in a universal sense.



Exactly. Level-based ASI exist.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Micah Sweet said:


> Cloud Strife is the Final Fantasy guy, I think?  Who are the other two?



Play Final Fantasy 4, you heathen.  It’s the best game in the series (though an argument can be made for FF1).


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> If you're saying a fighter moves so fast it is like he is teleporting, that is casting a spell by a different name.  It is just simpler solution to give the fighter spells.
> 
> I am not saying it is better, just simpler.  I actually think there should be less spell casters period.  Make wizards the only spell casters and everyone else has magic that isn't spells. That would be the way to do it in my book. Or, the AIME way and get rid of magic and just go mundane.



Eeeehhhhh… I would agree with you, except that spells have such specific flavor in D&D. If a fighter can move so fast that he’s functionally teleporting, I want it to be because he’s moving fast, not because he waved his hands in the right way and said the right words to manipulate The Weave of Magic to move him from one place to another in an instant.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> Background ASI do not make sense.
> Your training and life choices are already reflected by the standard array and a background doesn't necessarily lead to an ASI. A good for nothing ne'er do well would not build any abilities with his lifestyle and a noble is not automatically charismatic.




Umm….a member of a race that gets +2 Cha is not automatically charismatic, either. (8+2 = 10)

Look, it’s obvious that, for “reasons”, you like fixed racial ASIs. But you keep stating your game design preferences as if they are objectively true, and they’re simply not. Sorry.


----------



## Ixal

Cadence said:


> I mean, it kind of feels like reaching the human maximum takes both?  (I'm not going to be the next Michael Jordan no matter how hard I work, and it feels like Michael Jordan wouldn't have been the MVP material if he went out for the chess team or taken up video gaming full time instead of working out for basketball).



Yes.
And remember, in D&D you are not comparing humans to other humans, but humans to walking alligators. But somehow because both of them have the same background they are supposed to have the same attributes?


----------



## Azzy

Cadence said:


> I mean, it kind of feels like reaching the human maximum takes both?  (I'm not going to be the next Michael Jordan no matter how hard I work, and it feels like Michael Jordan wouldn't have been  MVP material if he went out for the chess team or had taken up video gaming full time instead of working out for basketball).



Wouldn't genetics be tour base Ability Scores, then?


----------



## Mecheon

DarkCrisis said:


> Play Final Fantasy 4, you heathen. It’s the best game in the series (though an argument can be made for FF1).



While I'd normally go in to bat for FF6 or FF9....

Nowerdays, I instead ask have you heard of the critically acclaimed MMORPG Final Fantasy XIV? With an expanded free trial which you can play through the entirety of A Realm Reborn and the award winning Heavensward expansion up to level 60 for free with no restrictions on playtime!


----------



## Micah Sweet

DarkCrisis said:


> Play Final Fantasy 4, you heathen.  It’s the best game in the series (though an argument can be made for FF1).



FF1 is the only one I actually played.  Finished it though.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic. No matter your background you have your ASI the same way you have darkvision or two eyes.



Says who? The ability scores are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. I don’t know about you, but I gained a lot more of all of those things from my life experience than I did from being born.


----------



## Ixal

Bill Zebub said:


> Umm….a member of a race that gets +2 Cha is not automatically charismatic, either. (8+2 = 10)



Yes, thats exactly what I said in my examples....
Compared to some gifted speaker from a other race the shy introvert from the supposedly charismatic race will pale in comparison.
But among shy introverts he will still be the most charismatic one. Likewise the gifted speaker of a other race will still lose out to a gifted speaker from the charismatic race.
Thats how racial ASI and the attribute array play together.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> Yes.
> And remember, in D&D you are not comparing humans to other humans, but humans to walking alligators. But somehow because both of them have the same background they are supposed to have the same attributes?




Last I checked equivalent ASIs doesn't lead to equivalent attributes.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Eeeehhhhh… I would agree with you, except that spells have such specific flavor in D&D. If a fighter can move so fast that he’s functionally teleporting, I want it to be because he’s moving fast, not because he waves his hands in the right way and said the right words to manipulate The Weave of Magic to move him from one place to another in an instant.



And now I'm picturing Warpsmiths from Miracle Man as a PC race...

"He lept for Aza Chorn, fast as a cheetah; as a mamba; as an ink-black thunderbolt. Yet, when they brag amongst themselves, the cats and snakes and sheets of lightning use one ultimate comparison, albeit sparingly. Fast as a warpsmith."
_ -Alan Moore, describing Kid Miracleman trying to attack a Warpsmith_


----------



## Minigiant

Dwarves got faster

"Speed: 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor."

to

"Speed: 30 feet"

Aaaw. I kinda miss the idea that dwarves naturally distributed the weight of armor. Plus fast dwarves iz dumb.


----------



## Umbran

Azzy said:


> Wouldn't genetics be tour base Ability Scores, then?




You realize that in the fantasy world, there don't have to be _genes_ for there to be genetics?  So "genetics" are always going to be a poor overall answer.


----------



## Haplo781

Guys, a mod has asked us to move discussions of classes and martial/caster differences out of this thread.

I started a new one here for those who want to continue on that topic.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> I play Level Up with added third party material, and hope to God they don't change LU to conform to this.



I doubt they will in an meaningful timeframe.


----------



## HammerMan

Haplo781 said:


> Since everyone seems to have missed it the first time.



Not missed I just was pages behind.  Sorry


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> Compared to some gifted speaker from a other race the shy introvert from the supposedly charismatic race will pale in comparison.




Um....wtf?  Pick two human ethnic groups, one of which is stereotyped to be gifted at...let's say math, and the other that is stereotyped to be bad at math.  

You just claimed that even the best mathematician from the second group will be inferior to the least gifted mathematician from the first group.

Really?

REALLY?


----------



## Ixal

Bill Zebub said:


> Um....wtf?  Pick two human ethnic groups,



We are not talking about ethnic groups but different fantasy races. Elf vs Dwarf, Human vs. Vulcan, two legged wannabe dragon vs. divine dog person, ect.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> Um....wtf?  Pick two human ethnic groups, one of which is stereotyped to be gifted at...let's say math, and the other that is stereotyped to be bad at math.
> 
> You just claimed that even the best mathematician from the second group will be inferior to the least gifted mathematician from the first group.
> 
> Really?
> 
> REALLY?




He wasn't using race in the faux-human division sense was he? I was pretty sure it was for different species.  (Gorilla and human with strength was the previously used example).


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> We are not talking about ethnic groups but different fantasy races.




Right....MAKE BELIEVE RACES.  (I'll point out that you keep using real life examples, invoking genetics, etc.  But, fine, let's stick with invented fantasy races and leave real humans out of it.)

And you keep making claims of definite truth about those made-up races. 

Again, if you imagine these things to be true in your homebrew world, or in your interpretation of a published setting, good on you.  Go for it.

But to claim that these things are just universally true? Nope.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> He wasn't using race in the faux-human division sense was he? I was pretty sure it was for different species.  (Gorilla and human with strength was the previously used example).




Yeah he keeps jumping around to whatever context best suits him.  I don't know if he means real world humans and gorillas, or game-world humans and gorillas...except that gorillas aren't a playable race.  Sooo.....


----------



## HammerMan

Umbran said:


> You realize that in the fantasy world, there don't have to be _genes_ for there to be genetics?  So "genetics" are always going to be a poor overall answer.



I LOVE aSoIaF. But one of the things that bugs me to no end is how in a book full of people that did not get there looks from either parent… somehow taking after 1 parent is proof of infidelity. 

I’m fine with genetics  not being a big part of fantasy, but the basic idea of how breeding works should be considered. (Like someone domesticated horses and dogs IN your world so I think it fair to say people can assume that trait breeding works most but not all times.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah he keeps jumping around to whatever context best suits him.  I don't know if he means real world humans and gorillas, or game-world humans and gorillas...except that gorillas aren't a playable race.  Sooo.....



I'm pretty sure I don't want to get involved with the 5e gorilla stats (16 Str?  6 Int?).

In previous editions he could have gone for Goliath or Half-Ogre vs. Halfling.   With the hard cap on ability scores being the same for all races and the ASIs at a bunch of level gains, that ship sailed a decade ago.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I haven't used feats in 5e yet.  Do any of the feat changes impact what might be done with the classes in upcoming UAs?  Will adding levels to feats greatly change how they are used in play?



I think adding levels to Feats is going to make a huge difference to how they’re used. In my experience, people use Feats in one of a few ways: Most typically they either they take variant human or custom lineage because there’s a Feat they really want to have at 1st level, or they don’t take any Feats until after they’ve boosted their primary ability to 20th, though in the latter case they might make an exception for a Feat that grants +1 to their primary ability score if it’s odd, always at 4th level. Occasionally a player who takes variant human or custom lineage will take Polearm Master at 1st level and Sentinel at 4th or vice-versa. _Very_ occasionally, a player will take a Feat at 4th level if it’s central to their build _and_ a non-human, non-custom lineage is central to their concept. And then you get the rare player who takes Feats at every ASI level because they think ASIs are boring. With the exception of the last player, nobody takes Feats that don’t grant direct combat benefits.

With leveled Feats, I think that’s going to change. Since JC said 1st level Feats aren’t going to grant ability score increases, and it looks like most of them aren’t big combat boosts, I think you’ll see a lot more variety in those Feats. Beyond that? It’ll be hard to predict how players will use them before we see what kinds of Feats are at what levels.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> Being smart allows you to do intellectually challenging things. And while you need to train to be an athlete (putting high values into physical scores in D&D), without the right genetics you won't get to the top.



You probably didn’t intend for it to be, but this is just naked eugenicist rhetoric.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Well, they're proposed to be background ASIs instead of racial one's, and WotC is seeking comments on everything, right?
> 
> I'm going to comment that I wish they just let the ASIs float and folks could justify it however they want.



Personally, if they did this I would rather it just be built into the rules for generating ability scores instead of bonuses to the scores after you’ve generated them.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Ixal said:


> No, this is what happens. People who won't play anything without an 18 certainly won't pass up on this chance. But its hard to defend floating ASI with "I can optimize more". Only 1, maybe 2 posters in all the ASI discussions I have seen were honest enough and said they like floating ASI because they can optimize.
> All others tried to argue that it "allows them to play different race/class combinations" which makes no sense as even with fixed ASI you can play all race/class combinations you want if you do without the 18.



Calling everyone who doesn’t parrot your talking point a liar sure is a way to engage in a conversation.


----------



## Faolyn

Ixal said:


> Thats frankly nonsense.
> 
> Why are elves and halflings better archers or throwers? Not because of background but because of their biology simply allowing better hand-eye coordination. Same way as for example Tau in Wh40K. Yes they might not know how to use a bow just because they are born (aka, playing a class with no bow proficiency), but their hand-eye coordination stays. The same way a chimps or gorillas muscle density is way higher than a humans so a small chimp could rival a grown man. You are talking about different races, of course there would be biological differences.
> 
> It doesn't matter that your elven slave performed hard labour his entire life. The dexterity is in his genes, the same way as having two eyes and two arms. It doesn't have to develop. What your elf develops is a lot of strength, represented by putting a high score into strength. That is what training represents. But ASI you get just for existing.



Elves are better archers because of tradition. Halflings are _not _better throwers in 5e or in... what are we calling the next edition now? D&DO? One? because slings are a simple weapon just about anyone can use, and they didn't give halflings any bonuses to use them. 

And honestly, "in their genes" isn't that good an excuse. Humans are better endurance runners than basically every other animal out there. We can outrun cheetahs in a race, simply because we can run for longer than they can. That's in _our _genes. But most people don't train to run and therefore are simply not good at it, and average Joe would fall over panting fairly quickly. How far can _you _run? _I _can manage a fast shuffle for a couple of seconds until I remember there's a reason I own a cane.

The same would happen with elves. An elf who really wants to train at being graceful will be very good, and that would be represented by them putting their highest stat in Dex, making an "Acrobat" or "Dancer" background, and taking some Dex-based skills to support that. But average elf is probably not going to do that. Average elf is going to be doing whatever elves do all day, like frolicking in the woods, or painting murals.

Elsewhere, you write:



Ixal said:


> 1. People somehow thinking that different fictional races being different is somehow racist (see @Faolyn's post). Which strangely only seems to be a problem in fantasy, not in scifi. I haven't heard any complains about Vulcans.



That's because SF tries to be at least a _little _bit realistic. There's in-setting reasons for Vulcans being strong: their planet is higher gravity, and they supposedly have much denser muscles than humans, and I'm pretty sure that they have a better pulmonary system, all of which are used to explain their high strength. Likewise, in real life, chimps literally have different types of muscles (more fast-twitch muscle fibers) than humans do which enhances their strength (but makes them tire out more easily).

In fantasy, you don't get that. You get _maaagic._ You get literary tradition determining what races are like, but literary tradition changes from time to time and so do interpretations of D&D races. Which is why, for instance, halflings used to get bonuses to saves against magic and half-orcs were built to be assassins, not barbarians. It's also why you can handwave things like a loxodon--a literally 8-foot-tall elephant-person--being no stronger than an elf (neither get Strength bonuses in 5e), or a 4'5" dwarf being as strong as a 7-foot goliath (both get a +2 Strength).


----------



## Cadence

<delete>


----------



## Minigiant

HammerMan said:


> I LOVE aSoIaF. But one of the things that bugs me to no end is how in a book full of people that did not get there looks from either parent… somehow taking after 1 parent is proof of infidelity.
> 
> I’m fine with genetics  not being a big part of fantasy, but the basic idea of how breeding works should be considered. (Like someone domesticated horses and dogs IN your world so I think it fair to say people can assume that trait breeding works most but not all times.



Yeah. "Genetics" isn't part of fantasy but "Breeding" and "Bloodline" 100% is.

(goes to podium)

That's why we at the HRAS request the reinstatement of the half elf and half orc to the PHB and the inclusion of the half dwarlf. And not by it's slave name, _the mul_, but as name that calls to its proud dwarven blood. Keep Half Races!


----------



## Faolyn

Ixal said:


> No, this is what happens. People who won't play anything without an 18 certainly won't pass up on this chance. But its hard to defend floating ASI with "I can optimize more". Only 1, maybe 2 posters in all the ASI discussions I have seen were honest enough and said they like floating ASI because they can optimize.
> All others tried to argue that it "allows them to play different race/class combinations" which makes no sense as even with fixed ASI you can play all race/class combinations you want if you do without the 18.



Because no matter what you want to believe, it's not about the optimization. It's about the characterization. How about instead of assuming that everyone is lying, you maybe reevaluate your beliefs on the subject.

My table rolls for stats, and my character for an upcoming game rolled well. But I'm playing a plasmoid alchemist artificer--generally considered the weakest of the artificer subclasses--and for my free feat, I took Chef instead of something like Elemental Adept, which would enhance my acidic spewings. And I didn't even put my other high score in Constitution, which is an important stat for artificers. It's in Charisma, because I'm a sales-ooze.

So yeah, tell me I'm optimizing here.


----------



## Cadence

Minigiant said:


> That's why we at the HRAS request the reinstatement of the half elf and half orc to the PHB and the inclusion of the half dwarlf. And not by it's slave name, _the mul_, but as name that calls to its proud dwarven blood. Keep Half Races!




One of my favorite series (Glen Cook's Garrett stories) is full of lots of beings that are part one thing and part another, or have an ancestor back aways contributing some giant or gnome characteristics.  Some rules for balancing choosing things from different races to make ones own (but not allowing for just picking all the really strong characteristics) feels like it would be neat.


----------



## Ixal

Charlaquin said:


> Personally, if they did this I would rather it just be built into the rules for generating ability scores instead of bonuses to the scores after you’ve generated them.



That would still leave us with races, some vastly different like dragonborn to halflings, which for game purposes are nearly identical, especially when they take the same background.

That not only stretches believability, several races have a lot of lore build on their racial ASI. Like elves being exceptional archers. That was backed up with their Dex bonus. Or the dwarven resistance to posion (including beer) with their con bonus.
That is all gone now.
And for what? So that people can always play a combat optimized character? Should D&D, which draws in a lot of new players into RPGs, really teach them that first and foremost they should optimize their character for combat and the character itself comes second?

Sadly I think thats one of the reasons for 5Es success. Do not overwhelm new players with nerdy pretending to be an elf. But making a combat character and killing things? Thats what new players did in video games, so it is a lot less strange to them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Faolyn said:


> An elf who really wants to train at being graceful will be very good, and that would be represented by them putting their highest stat in Dex, making an "Acrobat" or "Dancer" background, and taking some Dex-based skills to support that. But average elf is probably not going to do that. Average elf is going to be doing whatever elves do all day, like frolicking in the woods, or painting murals.



Elves don’t really like to frolick in the woods. It makes the trees too jealous.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> Sadly I think thats one of the reasons for 5Es success. Do not overwhelm new players with nerdy pretending to be an elf. But making a combat character and killing things? Thats why players do in video games, so it is a lot less strange to them.




I don’t know, I think it’s a pretty weak role player who can’t imagine they’re playing an elf just because other people, at other tables, might play elves with a +2 in something other than Dexterity.


----------



## Ixal

Faolyn said:


> The same would happen with elves. An elf who really wants to train at being graceful will be very good, and that would be represented by them putting their highest stat in Dex, making an "Acrobat" or "Dancer" background, and taking some Dex-based skills to support that. But average elf is probably not going to do that. Average elf is going to be doing whatever elves do all day, like frolicking in the woods, or painting murals.



And would still end up more graceful than the average human farmer because Elf. Thats the point. That being an elf matters even when you do not max out Dex instead of all races being identical until you select a background or decide where the floating ASI is added to.


----------



## HammerMan

Charlaquin said:


> You probably didn’t intend for it to be, but this is just naked eugenicist rhetoric.



The problem is that eugenicist spring from the misunderstanding of nature vs nurture.  It’s an easy trap for any non biologist to fall into (I myself am not one but one of my players is and she is a pain in the butt about these things)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Redacted. 

I don’t know why I’m going down this sewer pipe of a debate yet again. 

I’m going to go savor my yummy floating ASIs now.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m going to go savor my yummy *floating ASIs* now.




So you'll be voting* to let them truly float and not be nailed down to a background?   

* well returning feedback anyway


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Yeah. "Genetics" isn't part of fantasy but "Breeding" and "Bloodline" 100% is.
> 
> (goes to podium)
> 
> That's why we at the HRAS request the reinstatement of the half elf and half orc to the PHB and the inclusion of the half dwarlf. And not by it's slave name, _the mul_, but as name that calls to its proud dwarven blood. Keep Half Races!



Well, that’s… Kinda the thing, isn’t it? “Breeding” and “Bloodlines” are just other names for genetics. In fact, they’re _more transparently_ eugenicist names for it. That’s exactly why WotC are (potentially) removing half-races alongside racial ASIs. Now, there’s a valid case to be made that half-races are important representation for mixed-race people. The problem with that is, having just half-elves and half-orcs privileges some… err… “breeding pairs” (shudder) over others. And it’s going to take up a loooooooot of page space, to say nothing of design space, to account for every possible combination. So, what’s a designer to do? Maybe a catch-all “mixed-race” race?


----------



## SakanaSensei

Cadence said:


> So you'll be voting* to let them truly float and not be nailed down to a background?
> 
> * well returning feedback anyway



I’ll be returning feedback that says, “Please bold, highlight, and underline that the default background is custom, and then keep the stat boost in background.”


----------



## Ixal

ASI tied to background is imo the worst scenario, if it weren't for custom backgrounds (so back to floating).
A background does not necessarily have any relation to a specific attribute.
A farmer can be strong because he works a lot. Or, as it was often the case, he was weak because of constant malnourishment.
And just look what kind of nobles there were out there in history. You have everything from frontline soldier to lazy hedonis to uncharismatic tyrant. What kind of ASI should the noble background give?


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Well, that’s… Kinda the thing, isn’t it? “Breeding” and *“Bloodlines”* are just other names for genetics. In fact, they’re _more transparently_ eugenicist names for it. That’s exactly why WotC are (potentially) removing half-races alongside racial ASIs. Now, there’s a valid case to be made that half-races are important representation for mixed-race people. The problem with that is, having just half-elves and half-orcs privileges some… err… “breeding pairs” (shudder) over others. And it’s going to take up a loooooooot of page space, to say nothing of design space, to account for every possible combination. So, what’s a designer to do? Maybe a catch-all “mixed-race” race?



So, sorcerer needs a big edit too?
And the various plane-touched?


----------



## Minigiant

Cadence said:


> One of my favorite series (Glen Cook's Garrett stories) is full of lots of beings that are part one thing and part another, or have an ancestor back aways contributing some giant or gnome characteristics.  Some rules for balancing choosing things from different races to make ones own (but not allowing for just picking all the really strong characteristics) feels like it would be neat.



One of my favorite fan theories of ASOIAF was that the Starks had not only a high concentrtion the blood of the First Men but some of the Children of the Forest. And that mixture made them naturally charismatic leaders and eventually allowed the Stark children to link and warg into dire wolf cubs.


----------



## Cadence

SakanaSensei said:


> I’ll be returning feedback that says, “Please bold, highlight, and underline that the default background is custom, and then keep the stat boost in background.”




Why should I have to justify my ASI with a background?  Why can't I have a super-strong scholar who got the strength from a rumored giant-ancestor and not from working in the library?


----------



## Ixal

Cadence said:


> Why should I have to justify my ASI with a background?  Why can't I have a super-strong scholar who got the strength from a rumored giant-ancestor and not from working in the library?



Thats why imo a background should only provide you with stuff you learn while doing that background. Skills and proficiencies. Language would be a special case as it would depend on culture and where you lived and not necessarily your background but I do not thing WOtC will add a separate culture entry.


----------



## HammerMan

Minigiant said:


> One of my favorite fan theories of ASOIAF was that the Starks had not only a high concentrtion the blood of the First Men but some of the Children of the Forest. And that mixture made them naturally charismatic leaders and eventually allowed the Stark children to link and warg into dire wolf cubs.



Oh the aSoIaF breeding cross breeding rabbit hole goes deep.  (Then again every animal is the three eyed crow so some time foil is there too). This is also why I wish both the half races and custom linage gave more cut and paste help


----------



## SakanaSensei

Cadence said:


> Why should I have to justify my ASI with a background?  Why can't I have a super-strong scholar who got the strength from a rumored giant-ancestor and not from working in the library?



Hmm… yknow what, I’ll concede on this one! Floating is better than just racial or just background for reasons like this.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> That would still leave us with races, some vastly different like dragonborn to halflings, which for game purposes are nearly identical, especially when they take the same background.
> 
> That not only stretches believability, several races have a lot of lore build on their racial ASI. Like elves being exceptional archers. That was backed up with their Dex bonus.



Exceptional skill at archery is not a genetic trait, so it is appropriate that this (along with the bow and longbow proficiencies) be moved to background instead of race.


Ixal said:


> Or the dwarven resistance to posion (including beer) with their con bonus.



Ah, yes. The race with the genetic resistance to getting drunk, and the genetic knowledge of how to use brewer’s supplies. And the conspicuous Scottish accents. Classy.


Ixal said:


> That is all gone now.
> And for what? So that people can always play a combat optimized character? Should D&D, which draws in a lot of new players into RPGs, really teach them that first and foremost they should optimize their character for combat and the character itself comes second?



It’s not about optimization. It’s about not wanting eugenicist rhetoric to have a place in our hobby any more.


Ixal said:


> Sadly I think thats one of the reasons for 5Es success. Do not overwhelm new players with nerdy pretending to be an elf. But making a combat character and killing things? Thats what new players did in video games, so it is a lot less strange to them.



 trust me, new D&D players these days have no problem with being nerdy and pretending to be an elf, and are less and less invested in combat than D&D players have ever been. They just don’t want to be able to pretend to be an elf who’s rubbish  at archery, or a teetotaling dwarf, or a halfling power lifter, or a bookish orc. The old tropes are tired, they want to explore a wider range of possible fantasies.


----------



## HammerMan

Cadence said:


> Why should I have to justify my ASI with a background?  Why can't I have a super-strong scholar who got the strength from a rumored giant-ancestor and not from working in the library?



I pick up books and put them down all day. And they are like weights. Done.


----------



## Ixal

WotC decided to be lazy and do a melting pot (everyone can breed with everyone) but left out stirring the mix.


----------



## Cadence

HammerMan said:


> I pick up books and put them down all day. And they are like weights. Done.



If the justification for getting it by background can be that superficial, then why bother?
What does anyone lose at all by making it totally floating?


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Well, that’s… Kinda the thing, isn’t it? “Breeding” and “Bloodlines” are just other names for genetics. In fact, they’re _more transparently_ eugenicist names for it. That’s exactly why WotC are (potentially) removing half-races alongside racial ASIs. Now, there’s a valid case to be made that half-races are important representation for mixed-race people. The problem with that is, having just half-elves and half-orcs privileges some… err… “breeding pairs” (shudder) over others. And it’s going to take up a loooooooot of page space, to say nothing of design space, to account for every possible combination. So, what’s a designer to do? Maybe a catch-all “mixed-race” race?




Maybe there could be a special race just for human hybrids and do them like Elves.

You get 2 bonus Skill pofiecienies, Darkvision, your other parent's language as a bonus language, and a racial trait: Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, or Relentless Endurance.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> And would still end up more graceful than the average human farmer because Elf. Thats the point. That being an elf matters even when you do not max out Dex instead of all races being identical until you select a background or decide where the floating ASI is added to.



This is a point of philosophical difference. These days, people don’t think of race stats as saying anything about the average elf or the average human farmer. They see their stats as describing their unique character only. If every other elf in the world is graceful, so be it, they’re quite happy to be the one clumsy elf. Might actually be a selling point, as getting to have a character who is special is one of the main draws of the game for them.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> This is a point of philosophical difference. *These days, people don’t* think of race stats as saying anything about the average elf or the average human farmer. They see their stats as describing their unique character only. If every other elf in the world is graceful, so be it, they’re quite happy to be the one clumsy elf. Might actually be a selling point, as getting to have a character who is special is one of the main draws of the game for them.



Apparently that isn't quite as universal as you make it sound


----------



## Ixal

Charlaquin said:


> Exceptional skill at archery is not a genetic trait, so it is appropriate that this (along with the bow and longbow proficiencies) be moved to background instead of race.
> 
> Ah, yes. The race with the genetic resistance to getting drunk, and the genetic knowledge of how to use brewer’s supplies. And the conspicuous Scottish accents. Classy.



Hm archery is a ranged attack, so modified by Dex. Elves used to have an above average Dex score.
Resisting poison is a Con save, dwarves had good Con.
Its not really hard to understand how the racial ASI reinforced the lore.


Charlaquin said:


> The old tropes are tired, they want to explore a wider range of possible fantasies.



Nothing prevented them from exploring those fantasies in the past except them not having a maximized main attribute.


----------



## Ixal

Charlaquin said:


> This is a point of philosophical difference. These days, people don’t think of race stats as saying anything about the average elf or the average human farmer. They see their stats as describing their unique character only. If every other elf in the world is graceful, so be it, they’re quite happy to be the one clumsy elf. Might actually be a selling point, as getting to have a character who is special is one of the main draws of the game for them.



Easily done by putting the lowest score into dex which makes them below average (for an elf).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> This is a point of philosophical difference. These days, people don’t think of race stats as saying anything about the average elf or the average human farmer. They see their stats as describing their unique character only. If every other elf in the world is graceful, so be it, they’re quite happy to be the one clumsy elf. Might actually be a selling point, as getting to have a character who is special is one of the main draws of the game for them.



Yeah, I see that all the time.  I, however, will continue to see my character as a member of the heritage they belong to.  You'll can do what you want.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> So, sorcerer needs a big edit too?
> And the various plane-touched?



Once magic is involved, it’s far enough removed from real-life racist talking points that people seem to be fine with it. That said, will these things some day be viewed the way racial ASIs are now? It’s entirely possible. For now, I’m content to say that’s a bridge we can cross when we get to it.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Once magic is involved, it’s far enough removed from real-life racist talking points that people seem to be fine with it. That said, will these things some day be viewed the way racial ASIs are now? It’s entirely possible. For now, I’m content to say that’s a bridge we can cross when we get to it.




I'm not sure I see any difference at all for the plane-touched (aren't elves from faerie and dwarves forged by the gods from the earth, that seems pretty magical).

The sorcerers at least can be waived as being only a single individual I guess.


----------



## Haplo781

Removing explicit half-races is a problem, because some settings make them a distinct culture, e.g. Eberron's Khoravar. It also messes up some of the dragon marked races.

It's also throwing out something that's been part of the game since 1978. May as well throw out the rogue at that point.


----------



## Micah Sweet

I'm actually fine with background thibg, after all, that's what they do in Level Up.  I just have an issue with the philosophical point of being so hyper-focused on the individual.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Why should I have to justify my ASI with a background?  Why can't I have a super-strong scholar who got the strength from a rumored giant-ancestor and not from working in the library?



You literally can. Custom backgrounds are the default and the pre-written ones are only examples. If you want a background that’s identical to the scholar except that you get +2 Strength instead of +2 Intelligence, you are not only allowed but encouraged to do so.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> WotC decided to be lazy and do a melting pot (everyone can breed with everyone) but left out stirring the mix.



Ok, I disagree with your point, but this genuinely made me laugh. A tip of the hat to you.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Maybe there could be a special race just for human hybrids and do them like Elves.
> 
> You get 2 bonus Skill pofiecienies, Darkvision, your other parent's language as a bonus language, and a racial trait: Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, or Relentless Endurance.



I’d be down with that.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> You literally can. Custom backgrounds are the default and the pre-written ones are only examples. If you want a background that’s identical to the scholar except that you get +2 Strength instead of +2 Intelligence, you are not only allowed but encouraged to do so.



But why does it have to be from anything to do with being a scholar at all?  Why can't it be from the bloodline like a sorcerers magic would be?

What benefit is there from having the ASI come from the background instead of just being floating due to anything at all the player wants it to be?  (Maybe background, maybe family history, maybe a curse,  maybe a mystery?)


----------



## Azzy

Haplo781 said:


> Removing explicit half-races is a problem, because some settings make them a distinct culture, e.g. Eberron's Khoravar. It also messes up some of the dragon marked races.



To be fair, dragonmarks could easily be done as level-one feats under this rubric.

Though, I agree that just selecting a parent race and all its abilities is not... ideal.


----------



## Ixal

Haplo781 said:


> Removing explicit half-races is a problem, because some settings make them a distinct culture, e.g. Eberron's Khoravar. It also messes up some of the dragon marked races.
> 
> It's also throwing out something that's been part of the game since 1978. May as well throw out the rogue at that point.



I wonder why they were thrown out in the first place for a free for all between all races?
Did so many players really already create mixed racial parents in their backstories like the guy in the video claims? I have my doubts about that.
The most common backstory probably was the lone orphan with no mention of the parents.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> But why does it have to be from anything to do with being a scholar at all?  Why can't it be from the bloodline like a sorcerers magic would be?



It could. That could be part of the story of your custom background.


Cadence said:


> What benefit is there from having the ASI come from the background instead of just being floating due to anything at all the player wants it to be?  (Maybe background, maybe family history, maybe a curse,  maybe a mystery?)



The ability to provide curated flavorful sets of them for players who want to make as few choices at character creation as possible.


----------



## tsadkiel

Charlaquin said:


> The ability to provide curated flavorful sets of them for players who want to make as few choices at character creation as possible.



I am one of those players, and I really dislike the fixed ASIs by background.  Let them float free!

(Yeah, I know it's an easy fix, but I don't think farmers having +2 Con by default adds anything to my enjoyment of the game.)


----------



## cbwjm

Charlaquin said:


> It could. That could be part of the story of your custom background.
> 
> The ability to provide curated flavorful sets of them for players who want to make as few choices at character creation as possible.



Yeah, the background/bloodline could very well be giant-blooded scholar, granting both a Str boost and an Int boost.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ixal said:


> I wonder why they were thrown out in the first place for a free for all between all races?
> Did so many players really already create mixed racial parents in their backstories like the guy in the video claims? I have my doubts about that.



One of the most popular characters in Critical Role was a half-Tiefling, half-Genasi, using Tiefling stats. So, yeah, even if no one else had ever done this before Laura Bailey did it (which I know from experience is not the case, but even if it was), you can bet there are a _lot_ of people doing it now.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, if it’s not a new edition in the sense the term has been used in the history of D&D … it’s not a new edition.
> 
> Unfortunately, it really looks like it could be functionally a new edition. I cannot fathom ho they think that’s a good idea.



The term "Edition" has been used multiple ways in the history of D&D, few of them in line with standard usage. They've copped yo making brand new PHB, DMG, and MM...not slightly rearranged, but new books. This us about the level if change I expected, but I didn't see the "Xbox One" style marketing jargon. I wish they had just made it clearly 6E.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> But why does it have to be from anything to do with being a scholar at all?  Why can't it be from the bloodline like a sorcerers magic would be?
> 
> What benefit is there from having the ASI come from the background instead of just being floating due to anything at all the player wants it to be?  (Maybe background, maybe family history, maybe a curse,  maybe a mystery?)



It's not difficult to refluff. You want your +2 strength to be from your race instead of your background? Just... Say your +2 strength is from your race instead of your background. It doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest, so who cares?


----------



## Minigiant

Cadence said:


> The sorcerers at least can be waived as being only a single individual I guess



Sorcerers in D&D typically are generations away from their magical ancestor.

In fact, D&D specifically makes special races when you have a direct human-dragon or human-fiend pair: Half Dragon and Tiefling.

So by the rules: a half human half X should be its own race.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> It's not difficult to refluff. You want your +2 strength to be from your race instead of your background? Just... Say your +2 strength is from your race instead of your background. It doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest, so who cares?



Apparently a lot* of folks since they really want it to go with background instead of floating?

* Edit: Ok, some/several


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> If the justification for getting it by background can be that superficial, then why bother?
> What does anyone lose at all by making it totally floating?




One of the arguments that has been made is that chargen is complicated for newbies, and that floating ASIs are confusing.


----------



## Charlaquin

tsadkiel said:


> I am one of those players, and I really dislike the fixed ASIs by background.  Let them float free!
> 
> (Yeah, I know it's an easy fix, but I don't think farmers having +2 Con by default adds anything to my enjoyment of the game.)



It’s not that farmers have +2 Con  by default. It’s that a farmer with +2 Con is one example of a background a character might have. And while you may not want to make a lot of choices at character creation, it cannot be true that you want to make as few as possible, since you want to make one more than they are providing you the opportunity to make. Which is perfectly valid of course.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Apparently a lot* of folks since they really want it to go with background instead of floating?
> 
> * Edit: Ok, some/several



I mean, I don’t doubt that it’s a lot. Whether it’s a majority, who can say.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> The ability to provide curated flavorful sets of them for players who want to make as few choices at character creation as possible.






Bill Zebub said:


> One of the arguments that has been made is that chargen is complicated for newbies, and that floating ASIs are confusing.




It feels like one of the biggest simplifications for chargen would be to do something with the base ability scores - give them out based on class (subclass?) by default, for example.

So now they could skip the determining ability score step.  Pick race, pick background, pick class, write down the default class equipment, and you're done.


----------



## Kurotowa

Haplo781 said:


> Removing explicit half-races is a problem, because some settings make them a distinct culture, e.g. Eberron's Khoravar. It also messes up some of the dragon marked races.
> 
> It's also throwing out something that's been part of the game since 1978. May as well throw out the rogue at that point.



As I was just saying to a friend, Eberron was amazing in 3e because the world was custom tailored to the details and quirks of the system, down to the smallest details. But then the problem became that editions changed and Eberron was forced to choose between major retcon updates or carving out exceptions to protect its core nature. They went with the latter, and I can't say that was the wrong choice, but it means with every new edition Eberron becomes more of a city in a bottle. Preserved in time against the changed of the ages.

What I'm saying is, Eberron has handled this before and will handle it again.

As for throwing out parts of the game... friend, I don't know how to break this to you, but Rogues were only invented in the year 2000. Before that we had Thieves, and they died so the Rogue could live. As did the Assassin class. We also used to have race-as-class for the non-human races, an entirely different type of multi-classing, alignment limitations on classes, rolls for Wizards to be able to learn a new spell, percentile Strength, and the list goes on.

Lots of long standing game features have been deemed flawed or obsolete and let fall aside in an edition change over. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they live on in spirit, and sometimes people discover they don't miss them all that much. If half-races live on as a cosmetic choice instead of a mechanical differentiator that inspires endless debates about why some crosses get stats and others don't, well, I'll be ecstatic.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> @AcererakTriple6 and I discussed background as providing (part of) the initial ASI years ago it seems.



Yeah. I still prefer that version, but this one is better than the 2014 and Tasha's variant, IMO.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Faolyn said:


> Can I just say I hate the name ardling? While I realize there's probably enough people who made _ass_imar jokes to warrant the name change, ardling just makes me think they're, like, half aardvark or half aardwolf.



Ditto for me, but it also applies to "tiefling". I've always hated that name and thought it was silly since I joined the hobby.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Cadence said:


> Apparently a lot* of folks since they really want it to go with background instead of floating?
> 
> * Edit: Ok, some/several



Probably because now backgrounds are just a container for other potentially floating things.

The default is that after you pick your species, you pick your ASI, skills, tools and languages to represent your background, but you can also pick a pre-built package of those in the form of a background.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

tsadkiel said:


> I am one of those players, and I really dislike the fixed ASIs by background. Let them float free!



I'll go even more radical. I think you should just get 3 extra ability score points to spend as you will. You want to put them all in one score go ahead. Just one less complication I have to explain to people rolling up their first character.

Attaching them, nominally but not really, to backgrounds is just going to stress out new players for no good reason. They think they're making it simpler for people, and for people who don't really understand or care that these scores are pretty consequential they probably are. But for new players who've ever been anywhere near anything like an RPG before, and know they should probably optimize their numbers for the things they want to do, the nominal but meaningless association of ASIs with backgrounds just adds extra stress and confusion.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Haplo781 said:


> Removing explicit half-races is a problem, because some settings make them a distinct culture, e.g. Eberron's Khoravar. It also messes up some of the dragon marked races.
> 
> It's also throwing out something that's been part of the game since 1978. May as well throw out the rogue at that point.



You mean the thief, right?


----------



## Haplo781

Kurotowa said:


> As I was just saying to a friend, Eberron was amazing in 3e because the world was custom tailored to the details and quirks of the system, down to the smallest details. But then the problem became that editions changed and Eberron was forced to choose between major retcon updates or carving out exceptions to protect its core nature. They went with the latter, and I can't say that was the wrong choice, but it means with every new edition Eberron becomes more of a city in a bottle. Preserved in time against the changed of the ages.
> 
> What I'm saying is, Eberron has handled this before and will handle it again.
> 
> As for throwing out parts of the game... friend, I don't know how to break this to you, but Rogues were only invented in the year 2000. Before that we had Thieves, and they died so the Rogue could live. As did the Assassin class. We also used to have race-as-class for the non-human races, an entirely different type of multi-classing, alignment limitations on classes, rolls for Wizards to be able to learn a new spell, percentile Strength, and the list goes on.
> 
> Lots of long standing game features have been deemed flawed or obsolete and let fall aside in an edition change over. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they live on in spirit, and sometimes people discover they don't miss them all that much. If half-races live on as a cosmetic choice instead of a mechanical differentiator that inspires endless debates about why some crosses get stats and others don't, well, I'll be ecstatic.



Rogue is literally just a renamed and updated thief.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> It feels like one of the biggest simplifications for chargen would be to do something with the base ability scores - give them out based on class (subclass?) by default, for example.
> 
> So now they could skip the determining ability score step.  Pick race, pick background, pick class, write down the default class equipment, and you're done.



They kinda do already. The text of each class recommends where to assign your highest and second-highest score, and the standard array gives you a set of scores if you don’t want to generate them yourself.


----------



## tsadkiel

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not that farmers have +2 Con  by default. It’s that a farmer with +2 Con is one example of a background a character might have. And while you may not want to make a lot of choices at character creation, it cannot be true that you want to make as few as possible, since you want to make one more than they are providing you the opportunity to make. Which is perfectly valid of course.



I'm going to put the ASIs where I want them regardless.  Having to pick a background with the boosts I want for the character I want to play, modify an existing background, or write a new one is not making fewer choices than just placing the ASIs directly.  At most the fixed ASI by background is a difference in order of operations, but for me it adds work rather than making things easier.

Other brains may differ, but I've got to deal with the brain I've got.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> Were any of these changes things that are unexpected based on recent trends?
> 
> Thinking of the future UAs, are there any big things that have been telegraphed about the classes? Or are all of those changes likely much smaller?



I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.


----------



## Charlaquin

Kurotowa said:


> As I was just saying to a friend, Eberron was amazing in 3e because the world was custom tailored to the details and quirks of the system, down to the smallest details. But then the problem became that editions changed and Eberron was forced to choose between major retcon updates or carving out exceptions to protect its core nature. They went with the latter, and I can't say that was the wrong choice, but it means with every new edition Eberron becomes more of a city in a bottle. Preserved in time against the changed of the ages.
> 
> What I'm saying is, Eberron has handled this before and will handle it again.



Yeah, Eberron was very much “what would the world that all of 3.5e’s rules are ‘simulating’ actually look like?”


----------



## Kurotowa

Haplo781 said:


> Rogue is literally just a renamed and updated thief.



Yes, exactly. The emphasis changed, the mechanics changed, but the spirit lived on. My point is that the same thing is happening to the half-elf and half-orc. The emphasis is changing, the mechanics are changing, but the spirit lives on in a renamed and updated way.


----------



## Kurotowa

Parmandur said:


> I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.



They may be limited on that front by the "backwards compatibility" mandate. Moving the subclass levels around invalidates every supplement subclass that isn't reprinted in the One D&D PHB. Much as I'd like to see those changes too, I'm expecting there to be limits. But we'll see when they start releasing classes for testing.


----------



## Haplo781

Kurotowa said:


> Yes, exactly. The emphasis changed, the mechanics changed, but the spirit lived on. My point is that the same thing is happening to the half-elf and half-orc. The emphasis is changing, the mechanics are changing, but the spirit lives on in a renamed and updated way.



That's like removing the rogue entirely and saying "just play a fighter with a dagger."


----------



## Parmandur

Kurotowa said:


> They may be limited on that front by the "backwards compatibility" mandate. Moving the subclass levels around invalidates every supplement subclass that isn't reprinted in the One D&D PHB. Much as I'd like to see those changes too, I'm expecting there to be limits. But we'll see when they start releasing classes for testing.



Well, but it doesn't invalidate the books they are in totally, though. And the rules as they stand seem to allow just using 2014 versions of the Classes as needed. Do note thst we are only getting 2 new Subclass in print thine tire year, and it's already a Level 1 choice...

I'm not saying any particular changes will make it in, bit I expect to see some proposed by the designers.


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ditto for me, but it also applies to "tiefling". I've always hated that name and thought it was silly since I joined the hobby.



I believe Tiefling is derived from the German _Teufel_, which comes from the same root as the English Devil, along with the suffix -ling meaning lineage. I would guess Ardling has a similar linguistic explanation. Probably from the Gaelic árd, meaning “high” (but more in the sense of being important rather than physical elevation).


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Probably because now backgrounds are just a container for other potentially floating things.
> 
> The default is that after you pick your species, you pick your ASI, skills, tools and languages to represent your background, but you can also pick a pre-built package of those in the form of a background.



Yes! You get it!


----------



## Charlaquin

tsadkiel said:


> I'm going to put the ASIs where I want them regardless.  Having to pick a background with the boosts I want for the character I want to play, modify an existing background,



Literally the only “modification” you’re doing though is putting the ASIs where you want them, so I don’t see the problem.


tsadkiel said:


> or write a new one is not making fewer choices than just placing the ASIs directly.  At most the fixed ASI by background is a difference in order of operations, but for me it adds work rather than making things easier.



For you. There may be other players for whom it’s less work.


tsadkiel said:


> Other brains may differ, but I've got to deal with the brain I've got.



As do we all.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.



Yeah, I had been hoping  subclasses might all be gained at 1st level, but I figured it was an unrealistic hope as it would be too significant a structural change for the kind of revision the ‘24 rules would be. Seeing this UA though, my hope they will indeed do so is renewed. As is my fear that they’ll ruin my precious Warlock.


----------



## Charlaquin

Kurotowa said:


> They may be limited on that front by the "backwards compatibility" mandate. Moving the subclass levels around invalidates every supplement subclass that isn't reprinted in the One D&D PHB. Much as I'd like to see those changes too, I'm expecting there to be limits. But we'll see when they start releasing classes for testing.



They might propose such a change to see how we respond and walk it back if the feedback is too negative.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I had been hoping  subclasses might all be gained at 1st level, but I figured it was an unrealistic hope as it would be too significant a structural change for the kind of revision the ‘24 rules would be. Seeing this UA though, my hope they will indeed do so is renewed. As is my fear that they’ll ruin my precious Warlock.



Yeah, I think that the odds are that they will at least propose some fairly deep rewrites of some if not all of the Classes. I just hope the Monk and Barbsrian get some fundamental rewrites to flavor, of nothing else.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I think that the odds are that they will at least propose some fairly deep rewrites of some if not all of the Classes. I just hope the Monk and Barbsrian get some fundamental rewrites to flavor, of nothing else.



Yeah, the monk especially is in bad need of a flavor do-over, and the Barbarian to a slightly lesser extent as well. We’re probably stuck with the names though.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

At the very least, the fact that they're explicitly rolling "1st level feats" into Backgrounds puts the kibosh on the idea that they're going to do _absolutely nothing whatever_ in most cases.

This is pretty clearly a "5.5e," even if they intend to _call_ it "One D&D." Needing to include a disclaimer like the following:


> If you make a character using one of those
> older sources and get ability score increases from
> it, the character doesn’t also get ability score
> increases from Background, unless you forgo the
> older ability score increases to gain the increases
> from the Background rules here.



Means it's not quite as _absolutely unchanged_ as some thought.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, Eberron was very much “what would the world that all of 3.5e’s rules are ‘simulating’ actually look like?”



One of my hopes for a new setting is after they fix races is for a tradition agnostic viewing of how the races would look in a setting with 5.5e's rules.

A world were exceptional humans all have feats, a nation of dragoborn, and elves trancing ev'vywhere.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> One of my hopes for a new setting is after they fix races is for a tradition agnostic viewing of how the races would look in a setting with 5.5e's rules.
> 
> A world were exceptional humans all have feats, a nation of dragoborn, and elves trancing ev'vywhere.



My money is on Iomandra.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> One of my hopes for a new setting is after they fix races is for a tradition agnostic viewing of how the races would look in a setting with 5.5e's rules.
> 
> A world were exceptional humans all have feats, a nation of dragoborn, and elves trancing ev'vywhere.



Could be neat. Two of the best D&D settings to date, Eberron and Nentir Vale (don’t @ me), came from doing exactly that with previous editions. Well, NV kinda built the rules and the setting in parallel, but still.


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> At the very least, the fact that they're explicitly rolling "1st level feats" into Backgrounds puts the kibosh on the idea that they're going to do _absolutely nothing whatever_ in most cases.
> 
> This is pretty clearly a "5.5e," even if they intend to _call_ it "One D&D." Needing to include a disclaimer like the following:
> 
> Means it's not quite as _absolutely unchanged_ as some thought.



This is about what I thought they'd try. A couple of boxed texts as a "conversion document" is pretty mild.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, the monk especially is in bad need of a flavor do-over, and the Barbarian to a slightly lesser extent as well. We’re probably stuck with the names though.



Barbarian is, IMO untenable with their emphasis on cultural inclusion and sensitivity. And Monk I think is probably better served by being transitioned to another old Edition name for the Class, the Mystic.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> My money is on Iomandra.






Charlaquin said:


> Could be neat. Two of the best D&D settings to date, Eberron and Nentir Vale (don’t @ me), came from doing exactly that with previous editions. Well, NV kinda built the rules and the setting in parallel, but still.



Well Perkins is one author of the UA.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Parmandur said:


> This is about what I thought they'd try. A couple of boxed texts as a "conversion document" is pretty mild.



Sure. But there were several people who argued that making feats non-optional was totally breaking any semblance of backwards compatibility. Or that they couldn't make any significant changes to classes, for the same reason.

This document pretty conclusively proves that, at the very least, "completely backwards compatible" does not mean "only minor/cosmetic changes or rearrangements of existing effects." This is a legit top-to-bottom re-evaluation. The fundamental underlying math isn't going to change (sadly), but their approach to how it works may do so.

That Healer feat, for example, actually looks almost kinda-sorta serviceable as a legit replacement for Cleric healing. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new Fighter subclass, perhaps a rewrite (and redemption) of the Banneret/PDK, that gets Healer for free and leverages it for other benefits. If so, "One D&D" may be _very slightly_ more of a "4e wasn't THAT bad" revision than I had thought.



Haplo781 said:


> My money is on Iomandra.



Oh my God, that...that would be _so good_...I am legitimately kind of upset that that might happen, because I LOVE the concept of Iomandra and always wanted to play a game there. Which means I might have to play 5th edition "One D&D" in order to get it...


----------



## Quickleaf

EzekielRaiden said:


> At the very least, the fact that they're explicitly rolling "1st level feats" into Backgrounds puts the kibosh on the idea that they're going to do _absolutely nothing whatever_ in most cases.
> 
> This is pretty clearly a "5.5e," even if they intend to _call_ it "One D&D." Needing to include a disclaimer like the following:
> 
> Means it's not quite as _absolutely unchanged_ as some thought.



You know it's not just marketing because they put the "One" _before _the brand name.

Not like those Pepsi and X-Box chumps.  

"Guys, I've got this great idea for our new initiative. D&D One..."

"Nah, that's derivative, and feels like a blatant marketing ploy."

"Wait. Wait. _One _D&D! Eh? Eh?"

"Ooooo. I like!"


----------



## Haplo781

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure. But there were several people who argued that making feats non-optional was totally breaking any semblance of backwards compatibility. Or that they couldn't make any significant changes to classes, for the same reason.
> 
> 
> Oh my God, that...that would be _so good_...I am legitimately kind of upset that that might happen, because I LOVE the concept of Iomandra and always wanted to play a game there. Which means I might have to play 5th edition "One D&D" in order to get it...



Better to have a book that can you have to convert than no book at all.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> My money is on Iomandra.



Well damn. This is the first I’m hearing of this but it sounds awesome!


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Haplo781 said:


> Better to have a book that can you can convert than no book at all.



I mean, I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, there were a LOT of people, on this specific forum, who were _very explicitly_ saying that the "backwards compatibility" statement essentially guaranteed that no major changes could occur. This document proves that major changes are almost certainly coming.



Charlaquin said:


> Well damn. This is the first I’m hearing of this but it sounds awesome!



Oh yeah, Iomandra is friggin' awesome.


----------



## Azzy

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure. But there were several people who argued that making feats non-optional was totally breaking any semblance of backwards compatibility. Or that they couldn't make any significant changes to classes, for the same reason.



It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Azzy said:


> It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.



Based on the statements I've heard from several users on this very forum, the possibility of any feats, of any kind, _ever_ being non-optional is a borderline dealbreaker for them. (Personally, I think "the more, the merrier," but that's neither here nor there.) It certainly, as I said, puts the kibosh to the idea that old books can be used absolutely 100% flawlessly with no changes at all.


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, there were a LOT of people, on this specific forum, who were _very explicitly_ saying that the "backwards compatibility" statement essentially guaranteed that no major changes could occur. This document proves that major changes are almost certainly coming.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, Iomandra is friggin' awesome.



A lot of the argument was over what they meant by "backwards compatible," and that's fairly clear now. Which I think it was before, but now it is aggressively explicit.


----------



## Minigiant

Just realized that unarmed strike hits can automatically grapple.
Time to edit Sulpex chart on my Ogre Luchador


----------



## Charlaquin

Azzy said:


> It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.



Do we know that will be the case? My money would be on them cleaning up the clunkiness of having ASIs at certain levels but you can take a Feat instead of the DM lets you and instead making +2 to an ability score (or +1 to two ability scores) a repeatable 4th level Feat.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Just realized that unarmed strike hits can automatically grapple.
> Time to edit Sulpex chart on my Ogre Luchador



Yup, now PCs grapple the same way monsters have been doing it this whole time. Good change, in my opinion.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Presumably because it hasn’t been changed.



Yet. Who knows? Other changes with Rest could be coming later as it may rock the boat with pre-existing class options too much.



DND_Reborn said:


> My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.



Have you tried using interpretive dance?



Parmandur said:


> I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.



I agree. The issue I see with that, however, is that one of the top cited reasons IME people pick up the Warlock is also its build-your-own-warlock approach.



Charlaquin said:


> I believe Tiefling is derived from the German _Teufel_, which comes from the same root as the English Devil, along with the suffix -ling meaning lineage. I would guess Ardling has a similar linguistic explanation. Probably from the Gaelic árd, meaning “high” (but more in the sense of being important rather than physical elevation).



Not quite. "Tief" is the German word for "deep." So it's likely meant by creator Wolfgang Baur to evoke the lower planes.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Do we know that will be the case? My money would be on them cleaning up the clunkiness of having ASIs at certain levels but you can take a Feat instead of the DM lets you and instead making +2 to an ability score (or +1 to two ability scores) a repeatable 4th level Feat.



Feats in base 5E are such a mess, and apparently tly unpopular enough after 3E, that it made sense that they made it optional. This regime...could work.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> I agree. The issue I see with that, however, is that one of the top cited reasons IME people pick up the Warlock is also its build-your-own-warlock approach.



Folding Patron and Pact together wouldn't necessitate taking away Invocations, though, but it would make designing a new archetype easier in many ways.


----------



## Haplo781

Personally I hope the warlock goes back to its 3.5 roots.


----------



## Kurotowa

Parmandur said:


> Well, but it doesn't invalidate the books they are in totally, though. And the rules as they stand seem to allow just using 2014 versions of the Classes as needed. Do note thst we are only getting 2 new Subclass in print thine tire year, and it's already a Level 1 choice...



Let me draw an example. What I would expect to see is changes to make Blade Pact Warlock more viable out of the box, even if it makes some of the Hexblade Patron features redundant when you combine them. What I wouldn't expect to see is changes in what level Warlocks get that Pact and Patron at, making it hard to use Hexblade or Undead Patrons without additional alterations.

Now, I could be wrong. But that's where my expectations are currently calibrated. We'll have to wait to find out.


----------



## Parmandur

Kurotowa said:


> Let me draw an example. What I would expect to see is changes to make Blade Pact Warlock more viable out of the box, even if it makes some of the Hexblade Patron features redundant when you combine them. What I wouldn't expect to see is changes in what level Warlocks get that Pact and Patron at, making it hard to use Hexblade or Undead Patrons without additional alterations.
> 
> Now, I could be wrong. But that's where my expectations are currently calibrated. We'll have to wait to find out.



After what they dropped today, I think the possibilities are wide open. And, they might be able to get away with a brief sidebar "conversion docunent" to paper over any differences to facilitate options continuing to work.


----------



## JEB

Cruentus said:


> So , the only way to get the materials is to register on DnD Beyond, and the only way to create an account is to use your google or apple account?  Am I missing something?





Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow really? That blows. I can still use my Twitch account but I guess that's grandfathered.
> 
> I did predict (repeatedly lol) that WotC would lock playtest materials for this edition behind Beyond access, but I assumed Beyond didn't require to use such personal accounts.



I was able to reactivate my long-abandoned Twitch account and use it there (through the "Already have an account? Sign In" link). So someone might be able to create a new Twitch account and manage the same thing. Having to use my Google account was seriously giving me pause...


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Well damn. This is the first I’m hearing of this but it sounds awesome!



Someone compiled Iomandra into a Homebrewery document on Reddit. *Enjoy.*

Iomandra is probably one of my favorite settings from a designer's homebrew. It combines 4e's implied setting with seafaring island-hopping, plus a tiny bit of Council of Wyrms.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Aldarc said:


> I agree. The issue I see with that, however, is that one of the top cited reasons IME people pick up the Warlock is also its build-your-own-warlock approach.



My approach would be to make Pact and Patron still things you choose, but both at 1st level. Patron gives you the lion's share of your abilities. Pact unlocks access to important Invocations, some of which are "necessary" to make certain approaches viable (more or less the way they are now, but more strongly connected.) Kill the Hexblade patron entirely. Have the Blade Pact give proficiency with one-handed martial weapons and with shields, and allow the Warlock to use Charisma _for accuracy only_, not for damage. Then have an Invocation which lets you use two-handed weapons and lets you add your Cha mod to damage, and which requires 3rd level.

Boom. Instantly fixes both the Blade Pact being kind of sucky without Hexblade, _and_ fixes the overblown "a two-level Warlock dip is crazy!!" criticisms.


----------



## Haplo781

Aldarc said:


> Someone compiled Iomandra into a Homebrewery document on Reddit. *Enjoy.*
> 
> Iomandra is probably one of my favorite settings from a designer's homebrew. It combines 4e's implied setting with seafaring island-hopping, plus a tiny bit of Council of Wyrms.



"What if Nentir Vale but Wind Waker"


----------



## Charlaquin

Aldarc said:


> Yet. Who knows? Other changes with Rest could be coming later as it may rock the boat with pre-existing class options too much.



I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t see it. A short rest clearly still takes an hour since that’s how long you have to go into a long rest before it’s interrupted for an interruption to still net you a short rest. So, if they change anything about short rests, it would  be the benefits, which they didn’t change for long rests. I suppose they could make healer’s kit dependency the default? But that seems doubtful to me. They could maybe limit the number of them you can benefit from in a 24 hour period, as long rests are so limited? Only benefit I see that having is curtailing sorlock shenanigans (assuming warlocks are still short rest based).


Aldarc said:


> Not quite. "Tief" is the German word for "deep." So it's likely meant by creator Wolfgang Baur to evoke the lower planes.



Oh, that makes sense. And in that case Ardling would be even more of a linguistic counterpoint than I thought.


----------



## Charlaquin

Aldarc said:


> Someone compiled Iomandra into a Homebrewery document on Reddit. *Enjoy.*
> 
> Iomandra is probably one of my favorite settings from a designer's homebrew. It combines 4e's implied setting with seafaring island-hopping, plus a tiny bit of Council of Wyrms.



That sounds amazing! Thanks for the link!


----------



## Charlaquin

EzekielRaiden said:


> My approach would be to make Pact and Patron still things you choose, but both at 1st level. Patron gives you the lion's share of your abilities. Pact unlocks access to important Invocations, some of which are "necessary" to make certain approaches viable (more or less the way they are now, but more strongly connected.) Kill the Hexblade patron entirely. Have the Blade Pact give proficiency with one-handed martial weapons and with shields, and allow the Warlock to use Charisma _for accuracy only_, not for damage. Then have an Invocation which lets you use two-handed weapons and lets you add your Cha mod to damage, and which requires 3rd level.
> 
> Boom. Instantly fixes both the Blade Pact being kind of sucky without Hexblade, _and_ fixes the overblown "a two-level Warlock dip is crazy!!" criticisms.



Yeah, I mean in my experience everyone decides which pact boon they’ll get at character creation anyway. Same with  subclasses for other classes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player wait until reaching 3rd level to decide their subclass, including brand new players.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> Based on the statements I've heard from several users on this very forum, the possibility of any feats, of any kind, _ever_ being non-optional is a borderline dealbreaker for them. (Personally, I think "the more, the merrier," but that's neither here nor there.) It certainly, as I said, puts the kibosh to the idea that old books can be used absolutely 100% flawlessly with no changes at all.



Not really. No existing race or class is incompatible with what we are seeing, as much as my initial gut reaction leaned that way. You can play a 2014 PHB Wood Elf with Tasha’s Ranger stuff, and a UA 1DnD Background, no issues, no changes, nada.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Folding Patron and Pact together wouldn't necessitate taking away Invocations, though, but it would make designing a new archetype easier in many ways.



True, and I agree that designing a new archetype is easier, but a big part of the well-loved BYOW is the Patron + Pact Boon aspect. They will, IMO, have to weigh those two things against each other.

I do see either the Hexblade or the Bladelock going the way of the dodo. It will be one or the other, but likely not both. Either the Bladelock will steal the Hexblade's soul or the Hexblade will steal the Bladelock's soul.



Haplo781 said:


> "What if Nentir Vale but Wind Waker"



Pretty much. I have been considering running a game set in Iomandra, though I'm not sure if I would use D&D 5e or some other system (e.g., WWN, ICRPG, etc.) for that purpose.



Parmandur said:


> A lot of the argument was over what they meant by "backwards compatible," and that's fairly clear now. Which I think it was before, but now it is aggressively explicit.



In the end that I think that cognitive dissonance about these issue will be what wins and what WotC is counting on. At the end of the day, the reality of D&D as a "lifestyle brand" is that people are willing to put up with and rationalize changes they dislike for the sake of playing D&D.


----------



## Stalker0

Having glanced things over, here is my quick and dirty.


1st level Feats: Love the concept, but man....again some of those feats are really bad. Primal Attacker is consistently one of the bottom ranked feats and hasn't changed one bit. Alert has been nerfed into the ground compared to what it was etc.
Inspiration on a 20, solid. I like how they are integrated more directly instead of the wishy washy "Dm gives it when they feel like it".
Dwarves can get tremorsense....cool.
People can be medium or small...solid.
Grapple: Ug....5e has such nice simple grapple rules, and now they are becoming more complicated again. What made grapple useful was that even though it wasn't super strong, it was fairly easy to try. Now its got more complex mechanics, bonuses and penalties, now the grappler takes the slowed condition (but only while moving, so they do or don't have enemies get advantage on attacks against them?). I get that some monsters in 5e were getting grappled way too easily, but that's because a lot of monsters that should have had athletics skill didn't. Just fix that and your golden.
Rare languages seem to be a special purview of some backgrounds, I like it.
Rerolls are feeling a bit too common. Like Tavern brawler, I can reroll 1s on a d4...big whoop. The average boost to that is so darn tiny it barely feels worth the effort.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I mean in my experience everyone decides which pact boon they’ll get at character creation anyway. Same with  subclasses for other classes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player wait until reaching 3rd level to decide their subclass, including brand new players.



That's precisely major component of why WotC designers have expressed regret at making it a later choice for some Classes: nobody actually waits till Level 3 to decide what kind of Rogue or Bard they want to be.


----------



## Haplo781

Stalker0 said:


> Having glanced things over, here is my quick and dirty.
> 
> 
> 1st level Feats: Love the concept, but man....again some of those feats are really bad. Primal Attacker is consistently one of the bottom ranked feats and hasn't changed one bit. Alert has been nerfed into the ground compared to what it was etc.
> Inspiration on a 20, solid. I like how they are integrated more directly instead of the wishy washy "Dm gives it when they feel like it".
> Dwarves can get tremorsense....cool.
> People can be medium or small...solid.
> Grapple: Ug....5e has such nice simple grapple rules, and now they are becoming more complicated again. What made grapple useful was that even though it wasn't super strong, it was fairly easy to try. Now its got more complex mechanics, bonuses and penalties, now the grappler takes the slowed condition (but only while moving, so they do or don't have enemies get advantage on attacks against them?). I get that some monsters in 5e were getting grappled way too easily, but that's because a lot of monsters that should have had athletics skill didn't. Just fix that and your golden.
> Rare languages seem to be a special purview of some backgrounds, I like it.



Savage Attacker got worse, actually. It requires you to take the attack action, so no rerolls on opportunity attacks.

In the plus side, you can use it with bows now.


----------



## Stalker0

Parmandur said:


> That's precisely major component of why WotC designers have expressed regret at making it a later choice for some Classes: nobody actually waits till Level 3 to decide what kind of Rogue or Bard they want to be.



Agreed, its why I consider levels 1-2 "training wheel" levels, and level 3 are "true member of that class".

Its also why I hate that paladins don't get their aura until 6th level. I get it....its powerful, but its so iconic and one of the principle reasons that paladins have good charismas. Its strange that you basically have to be a decently high level before you get one of their most iconic class features.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> True, and I agree that designing a new archetype is easier, but a big part of the well-loved BYOW is the Patron + Pact Boon aspect. They will, IMO, have to weigh those two things against each other.
> 
> I do see either the Hexblade or the Bladelock going the way of the dodo. It will be one or the other, but likely not both. Either the Bladelock will steal the Hexblade's soul or the Hexblade will steal the Bladelock's soul.
> 
> 
> Pretty much. I have been considering running a game set in Iomandra, though I'm not sure if I would use D&D 5e or some other system (e.g., WWN, ICRPG, etc.) for that purpose.
> 
> 
> In the end that I think that cognitive dissonance about these issue will be what wins and what WotC is counting on. At the end of the day, the reality of D&D as a "lifestyle brand" is that people are willing to put up with and rationalize changes they dislike for the sake of playing D&D.



Yeah, I thinknthe changes are modular enough, and theybare probably willing to back off of any co traverse, that I don't see major adaption issues.

I think as long as the Invocation system remains, the Warlocks customization will still shine out. The mismatch between Pateon and Pact, and difficulty of coming up with new Pacte, was something bothering the designers by the time of the Tasha's tests.


----------



## JEB

Occurs to me that while Guardinals (NG) are the most obvious precursor to Ardlings, there were also other animal-headed celestials in older editions: the Hound Archons and the lesser-known Warden Archons (LG). (None of the original eladrin seemed to have animal motifs, but that's still 2/3.)


----------



## Faolyn

Ixal said:


> And would still end up more graceful than the average human farmer because Elf. Thats the point. That being an elf matters even when you do not max out Dex instead of all races being identical until you select a background or decide where the floating ASI is added to.



Except no, because they don't get a racial bonus to Dex anymore. And there's no need for them to. If you want your elf to be particularly agile, then put that bonus into Dex. But don't expect everyone to have to do the same thing.

Also, the races aren't identical because they have racial traits that are different.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Haplo781 said:


> Savage Attacker got worse, actually. It requires you to take the attack action, so no rerolls on opportunity attacks.
> 
> In the plus side, you can use it with bows now.




No it did not become worse.
Now you can roll two dice and take the higher. Before you had to reroll one die and hope to not roll lower.
For someone who rolls a single d12, it is now ok. 
But I think it is still not good enough.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Occurs to me that while Guardinals (NG) are the most obvious precursor to Ardlings, there were also other animal-headed celestials in older editions: the Hound Archons and the lesser-known Warden Archons (LG). (None of the original eladrin seemed to have animal motifs, but that's still 2/3.)



Crawford called out Hound Archons in the video.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Stalker0 said:


> Rerolls are feeling a bit too common. Like Tavern brawler, I can reroll 1s on a d4...big whoop. The average boost to that is so darn tiny it barely feels worth the effort.




For itself, ot is so lala. But his bullet point makes the feat not redundand for a monk, who might reroll d10s for all we know.


----------



## Haplo781

UngeheuerLich said:


> No it did not become worse.
> Now you can roll two dice and take the higher. Before you had to reroll one die and hope to not roll lower.
> For someone who rolls a single d12, it is now ok.
> But I think it is still not good enough.



It's worth less than 2 damage on average if you're rolling a d12. There's literally no reason to take it


----------



## Tonguez

Background feats, class feats and race fluff - Feat-buy DnD it is


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Haplo781 said:


> It's worth less than 2 damage on average if you're rolling a d12. There's literally no reason to take it



People dismissed the great axe because it is less than 0.5 damage lower than the great sword...
so I am not sure this is true...

But as I said: not good enough. I think this feat needs a second bullet point. Probably combine it with charger?


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> That's precisely major component of why WotC designers have expressed regret at making it a later choice for some Classes: nobody actually waits till Level 3 to decide what kind of Rogue or Bard they want to be.



This was an issue that several players at my tables had about the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. The players wanted some magic out of the gate, but unless they picked a race with a bonus feat (i.e., human) or with the right cantrip (e.g., high elf, etc.), then they were unable to really play out the basics of their character concept until 3rd level. 

However, (a) the bonus feat at 1st level means that they can take Magic Intitiate without feeling pressured to take other "must haves," and (b) it's possible that the class and subclass structure will be tweaked for certain classes so that they can choose their subclasses at 1st level anyway. Ideally both. 



Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I thinknthe changes are modular enough, and theybare probably willing to back off of any co traverse, that I don't see major adaption issues.
> 
> I think as long as the Invocation system remains, the Warlocks customization will still shine out. The mismatch between Pateon and Pact, and difficulty of coming up with new Pacte, was something bothering the designers by the time of the Tasha's tests.



One issue that I could foresee is the problem that if they do combine them, then someone's warlock character concept will get screwed over. If they convert their character over to Nat 1 D&D but find out, for example, that all their Fiendlocks have the Chain Boon and are locked out of the other boons or that Feylocks can't be Bladelocks, then that may damper their spirits.


----------



## Parmandur

Tonguez said:


> Background feats, class feats and race fluff - Feat-buy DnD it is



Psssst, 5E has always been that.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> This was an issue that several players at my tables had about the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. The players wanted some magic out of the gate, but unless they picked a race with a bonus feat (i.e., human) or with the right cantrip (e.g., high elf, etc.), then they were unable to really play out the basics of their character concept until 3rd level.
> 
> However, (a) the bonus feat at 1st level means that they can take Magic Intitiate without feeling pressured to take other "must haves," and (b) it's possible that the class and subclass structure will be tweaked for certain classes so that they can choose their subclasses at 1st level anyway. Ideally both.
> 
> 
> One issue that I could foresee is the problem that if they do combine them, then someone's warlock character concept will get screwed over. If they convert their character over to Nat 1 D&D but find out, for example, that all their Fiendlocks have the Chain Boon and are locked out of the other boons or that Feylocks can't be Bladelocks, then that may damper their spirits.



Well, on the other hand...they can continue to run the old options. Though consistency of concept is important to WotC...we'll see what they do. We might have to wait a while for the Warlock, lol, Artificer or Bard will come up sooner.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

With this iteration of the game it looks like they are indeed leaning more on the multiversal setting, Sigil gets brought up for both Humans and Tieflings in regards to their story/background.


----------



## Charlaquin

Stalker0 said:


> Having glanced things over, here is my quick and dirty.
> 
> 
> 1st level Feats: Love the concept, but man....again some of those feats are really bad. Primal Attacker is consistently one of the bottom ranked feats and hasn't changed one bit. Alert has been nerfed into the ground compared to what it was etc.



I wouldn’t sweat the power of individual Fears too much. As the sidebar says, they’ll get tweaked to bring them to the desired power level later, if they survive this initial vibe check.


Stalker0 said:


> Inspiration on a 20, solid. I like how they are integrated more directly instead of the wishy washy "Dm gives it when they feel like it".



I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I’m in favor of trying to make it common enough that players don’t feel the need to hoard it, and making it something the player can gain themselves instead of hoping the DM will remember your traits and think you did a good job roleplaying them. On the other hand, I liked that gaining inspiration was tied to your actions, and I don’t like the idea of it just being random. This is why I like just saying the player can grant _themselves_ Inspiration once per trait per session.


Stalker0 said:


> Dwarves can get tremorsense....cool.



Hell yeah! 


Stalker0 said:


> People can be medium or small...solid.



Some of them. Elves, dwarves, orcs and dragonborn can’t be, which is… weird… 


Stalker0 said:


> Grapple: Ug....5e has such nice simple grapple rules, and now they are becoming more complicated again. What made grapple useful was that even though it wasn't super strong, it was fairly easy to try. Now its got more complex mechanics, bonuses and penalties, now the grappler takes the slowed condition (but only while moving, so they do or don't have enemies get advantage on attacks against them?). I get that some monsters in 5e were getting grappled way too easily, but that's because a lot of monsters that should have had athletics skill didn't. Just fix that and your golden.



I think the rule for establishing and escaping the grapple is actually far simpler (again, that’s the way monsters have been doing it this whole time, specifically because it’s simpler). Giving the grappler the Slowed condition while moving the grappled target feels a little odd, I agree.


Stalker0 said:


> Rare languages seem to be a special purview of some backgrounds, I like it.



Nope. Backgrounds are entirely customizable, and in fact, build-your-own is the default. The pre-written ones are all just examples of possible backgrounds you can build (or just take one of the examples if you don’t want to bother building your own).


Stalker0 said:


> Rerolls are feeling a bit too common. Like Tavern brawler, I can reroll 1s on a d4...big whoop. The average boost to that is so darn tiny it barely feels worth the effort.



It increases your average damage by half a point, which is not bad, actually. That’s true regardless of die size, which is unintuitive but provable mathematically.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> For itself, ot is so lala. But his bullet point makes the feat not redundand for a monk, who might reroll d10s for all we know.



Doesn’t actually matter, reroll on a 1 is +0.5 average whether you’re rolling a d4 or a d100.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> It's worth less than 2 damage on average if you're rolling a d12.



Huh?


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> People dismissed the great axe because it is less than 0.5 damage lower than the great sword...
> so I am not sure this is true...
> 
> But as I said: not good enough. I think this feat needs a second bullet point. Probably combine it with charger?



Well… when its competition is the likes of Healer and Skilled, does it really need more?


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Huh?



Average value of 1d12 is 6.5. average value of 2d12 keep higher is 8.49.

It's an even worse value with smaller die sizes.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Well… when its competition is the likes of Healer and Skilled, does it really need more?



It's not competing with Healer and Skilled. It's competing with Magic Initiate and +2 to an ability score.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Average value of 1d12 is 6.5. average value of 2d12 keep higher is 8.49.



Right you are. I got confused and thought you were talking about Tavern Brawler.


Haplo781 said:


> It's not competing with Healer and Skilled. It's competing with Magic Initiate and +2 5o an ability score.



Well, it’s competing with Magic Initiate, yes. Not with +2 to an ability score, as that’s not an option at 1st level. It’s possible that Magic Initiate is too strong to be a 1st level Feat. Or maybe the other 1st level Feats all need a boost to get on MI’s level. They’ll sort that out later, if leveled Feats pass the survey stage.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

UngeheuerLich said:


> People dismissed the great axe because it is less than 0.5 damage lower than the great sword...
> so I am not sure this is true...
> 
> But as I said: not good enough. I think this feat needs a second bullet point. Probably combine it with charger?




That would be perfect, IMO. Let a Savage Attacker charge. (Unless they bring back the Charge Action) - and if they do, then give Savage Attacker a charge buff.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> Well… when its competition is the likes of Healer and Skilled, does it really need more?



Yes. Something fluffy would be sufficient. Athletics skill? 

I also think skilled is not a good feat.
A package of 3 skills at once bothered me for 10 years now.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Right you are. I got confused and thought you were talking about Tavern Brawler.
> 
> Well, it’s competing with Magic Initiate, yes. Not with +2 to an ability score, as that’s not an option at 1st level. It’s possible that Magic Initiate is too strong to be a 1st level Feat. Or maybe the other 1st level Feats all need a boost to get on MI’s level. They’ll sort that out later, if leveled Feats pass the survey stage.



Savage Attacker might be worthwhile if it let you reroll _all_ damage dice on an attack, including sneak attack, smite, etc.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Savage Attacker might be worthwhile if it let you reroll _all_ damage dice on an attack, including sneak attack, smite, etc.



Given the change to the wording on critical hits specifying the weapon’s damage dice, that doesn’t seem like the direction they want to go in.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Stalker0 said:


> Grapple: Ug....5e has such nice simple grapple rules, and now they are becoming more complicated again. What made grapple useful was that even though it wasn't super strong, it was fairly easy to try. Now its got more complex mechanics, bonuses and penalties, now the grappler takes the slowed condition (but only while moving, so they do or don't have enemies get advantage on attacks against them?). I get that some monsters in 5e were getting grappled way too easily, but that's because a lot of monsters that should have had athletics skill didn't. Just fix that and your golden.



How is “an unarmed can grapple a target” more complicated than an opposed check? 


Aldarc said:


> One issue that I could foresee is the problem that if they do combine them, then someone's warlock character concept will get screwed over. If they convert their character over to Nat 1 D&D but find out, for example, that all their Fiendlocks have the Chain Boon and are locked out of the other boons or that Feylocks can't be Bladelocks, then that may damper their spirits.



I think this undersells the negative reaction that would result. 

A great way to ensure that warlock players don’t want to switch to the new version.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think this undersells the negative reaction that would result.
> 
> A great way to ensure that warlock players don’t want to switch to the new version.



Yeah, I’m in favor of moving pact boons to 1st level, but they should definitely remain an independent choice from patron.


----------



## Aldarc

doctorbadwolf said:


> *I think this undersells the negative reaction that would result.*
> 
> A great way to ensure that warlock players don’t want to switch to the new version.



My goal was not to undersell or oversell the pitfall trap but merely to point out its presence, one that players and designers should be cognizant of.


----------



## HammerMan

Cadence said:


> If the justification for getting it by background can be that superficial, then why bother?
> What does anyone lose at all by making it totally floating?



I don’t know. But in a RPG you should be able to justify almost anything


----------



## Charlaquin

Charlaquin said:


> It increases your average damage by half a point, which is not bad, actually. That’s true regardless of die size, which is unintuitive but provable mathematically.





Charlaquin said:


> Doesn’t actually matter, reroll on a 1 is +0.5 average whether you’re rolling a d4 or a d100.



I’m incorrect about this. I was thinking always reroll ones, but it’s reroll and take the second result even if it’s a 1, which is not as good. It’s around +0.375 for 1d4 and around +0.45 for 1d10.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> A lot of the argument was over what they meant by "backwards compatible," and that's fairly clear now.




So instead of the standard meaning, they meant 'backward' in the sense of 'the opposite of'?


----------



## HammerMan

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I had been hoping  subclasses might all be gained at 1st level, but I figured it was an unrealistic hope as it would be too significant a structural change for the kind of revision the ‘24 rules would be. Seeing this UA though, my hope they will indeed do so is renewed. As is my fear that they’ll ruin my precious Warlock.



I hope all classes learn from warlock 
2 subclasses.  1 at 1st and 1 at 3rd and mix and match provides diffrent builds.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

Parmandur said:


> Barbarian is, IMO untenable with their emphasis on cultural inclusion and sensitivity. And Monk I think is probably better served by being transitioned to another old Edition name for the Class, the Mystic.



Barbarian fixable by giving all other classes Language (Greek) at first level.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Medic said:


> The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?




No, the problem with this is that you're thinking about it in reverse: this is not so that my Cleric can have a charisma boost, but rather that I can play a Half-Orc Cleric and not be immediately confined by having to be strong and tough, but rather one that is wise and charismatic.

People keep looking at this from "min-maxing" and that's half-right and half-wrong: rather, it's making it so that people don't have to optimally choose their race to fit their class. Elvish Barbarians, Dwarfish Rogues, Gnomish Fighters, etc. Instead of someone looking at an elf and saying "Well, I have to fit this to best advantage my Dex bonus", they can play an elf that is wise and charismatic but also clumsy. You can now play a sickly dwarf who became booksmart because he couldn't do regular dwarfish tasks.

The whole point is that it opens up all races to do whatever you want and show a broader ideas of what those races can be. If you want to distinguish the races, then in this system ASIs are the most restrictive and worst way to do it: you don't get many of them and while they can have big effects in a low-number system they are also the *least flavorful thing you can use to differentiate them*. Like, the new Dwarf's _Stonecunning _ability is cool, flavorful, and useful in a way that the 2014 Dwarf's ability kind of aren't (Sorry, a few extra proficiencies just don't do it).

Like, 5 years ago I had an idea like this where instead of ASIs for race, you'd choose between several racial feats that would express natural proclivities and cultural focuses. This is not a bad start. Aim more for that stuff. Pathfinder 2E has a starting feat for Elves if they are over 100 years called _Ancestral Longevity_, where you can basically prepare a skill for the day since you've lived long enough to have dabbled in just about everything. That stuff is *way cooler* than an ASI and that's what D&D should lean into with these. Every one of these races should get two more cool abilities.



dave2008 said:


> Yes, I checked the monk out.  It is not set up for that, but the Ki chasis would be a good to model that type of fighter on.
> 
> Personally I don't want that type of fighter, but we don't like high magic settings either. So the game works for us. I've often thought they should make a hard split at 10th level. Everything 10 and below is mundane. From 11th above your getting in the magic warrior / super hero abilities like what you describe.




Yeah, I've been saying this for a while now: the ki point resource pool is a great idea for just about any martial you want. Just give it some refill capability outside of resting (Again, just take that Grit concept from Matt Mercer's gunslinger) and it'll be great.



Ixal said:


> Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic. No matter your background you have your ASI the same way you have darkvision or two eyes.
> Background are for things you learn like skills, languages and proficiencies. A noble will likely learn etiquette or diplomacy. But he might still have to struggle with a Habsburg jaw. He doesn't get more charismatic just for being a noble. And a elf noble and orc noble would still differ in strength and dexterity on account of being a elf and orc instead of being exactly the same on account of being a noble.
> 
> And to represent that PCs are exceptional you have the stat array which is vastly superior to what NPCs get. And that also represents training and apitude which goes on top of biological properties and don't replace them.
> 
> Basically:
> Race -> ASI, darkvision, other biological features
> Background -> Skills, proficiencies, language




ASIs aren't genetics. Your stat array is, since you have a limited ability to affect that: if I'm clumsy, I can work at not being clumsy but it'll take a lot of time to be truly _good_. Just as well you can be a natural at something and improve it with practice.

ASIs in the game are explicitly not about genetics but about improvement, otherwise you wouldn't gain them over time without any sort of restriction on where you can put them.



Ixal said:


> Background ASI do not make sense.
> Your training and life choices are already reflected by the standard array and a background doesn't necessarily lead to an ASI. A good for nothing ne'er do well would not build any abilities with his lifestyle and a noble is not automatically charismatic.




Again, the standard array would be closer to your natural abilities, with your background showing where you decided to focus and improve yourself. A good-for-nothing ne'er-do-well would *absolutely* get better in, say, Charisma if he has to lie a lot, just as a noble would get better Charisma by virtue of having schooling and training in how to act around people, how to make banter, etc. The idea that you don't improve the parts of you that you practice is utterly surreal and goes against the game's design.



Ixal said:


> We are not talking about ethnic groups but different fantasy races. Elf vs Dwarf, Human vs. Vulcan, two legged wannabe dragon vs. divine dog person, ect.




Why not Romulan vs. Vulcan? Those are two groups that are genetically identical, but are brought up in completely different philosophies which shape what they focus on. Like backgrounds, it is the environment and what they choose to focus on that would lead a Vulcan to have more Wisdom while a Romulan would likely have more Charisma.

Further, this misses that there can be significant genetic biodiversity that would allow people not to be confined to the simple stereotypes: why _can't _there be an elf who is actually is not exactly smart and has a penalty for Int? Why not have a halfling who isn't really quick, but he's damn strong? Why can't I have a Dragonborn who is not strong or charismatic, but is dexterous and fast?

Again, the bigger point would be to give each ancestry cool tools that allow them to differentiate themselves in interesting and more noticeable ways than ones that just confine them to certain niches. Again, gonna bring up _Stonecunning_ because that is a power that doesn't confine a Dwarf to a certain class but rather is generally useful. Even the spells that Elves and Gnomes have are generally useful and don't push them towards any one class. At the end, you want to open up options, not try to push people harder into a box.



I know there was something I wanted to say beyond just quoting people (I'll probably remember it right after I post), but the biggest thing is that they need to give these choices more. Dragonborn are just anemic and should have some cool stuff beyond the colors of their scales. The races that get cantrips obviously have a bit more pop to them, but I'd rather see unique _abilities_ and not just spell stuff. Giving the humans "resourceful" was a cool start, but let's just see *more*.


----------



## Aldarc

Listening to Crawford again talk about Inspiration. So does the whole idea that non-magic party members can "Inspire" their fellow people, that we will be stuck hearing more anti-warlord-style kvetching echoing the usual "you don't non-magically inspire me! that's brainwashing!"?

Also I appreciate that they are changing Inspiration. Crawford addresses one of my major points of criticism about Inspiration - which I was repeatedly told was a non-issue because "Inspiration is perfect as it is (...but here are my houserules for it)" - namely that Inspiration was disconnected from the playloops of the game. Connecting it to a natural 20* and other in-game sources alleviates that issue. 

* Honestly, I would prefer attaching it to a Nat 1 so there is an upside to an automatic failure that makes it a little more psychologically acceptable, but that's me.


----------



## Bagpuss

TwoSix said:


> I can't believe we're still arguing about removing ASIs after 2 years.  It's kind of ridiculous at this point.




Perhaps because it is was a stupid idea then and is still a stupid idea now. Although I do actually like bonuses are linked to background, I still think it was daft to divorce them completely from race.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not really. No existing race or class is incompatible with what we are seeing, as much as my initial gut reaction leaned that way. You can play a 2014 PHB Wood Elf with Tasha’s Ranger stuff, and a UA 1DnD Background, no issues, no changes, nada.



It sounds like they're specifically deprecating the old backgrounds. Otherwise, the aforementioned disclaimer (about how you can't get both racial ability bonuses _and_ background ability bonuses) makes no sense.

Edit: To be clear, again I see this as clear demonstration of the "5.5e" nature of "One D&D." That is, despite the reworks, you pretty much could play a 3.0 Ranger in 3.5e, or use the old versions of spells, or whatever else, and be fine. That doesn't mean there weren't changes, nor that you weren't really _supposed_ to use the old material, even though you theoretically _could_. (Consider the reputation of _Savage Species_ among 3.5e fans: more or less "yes it can be used, no you probably shouldn't unless you're very confident it's okay.")


----------



## Neonchameleon

EzekielRaiden said:


> It sounds like they're specifically deprecating the old backgrounds. Otherwise, the aforementioned disclaimer (about how you can't get both racial ability bonuses _and_ background ability bonuses) makes no sense.



That's just stopping the munchkins mixing and matching using e.g. a 2014 Mountain Dwarf 2024 Gladiator for a combined +4 to strength.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Neonchameleon said:


> That's just stopping the munchkins mixing and matching using e.g. a 2014 Mountain Dwarf 2024 Gladiator for a combined +4 to strength.



Sure. It's still a disclaimer indicating that certain uses of old material will be deprecated. It also _very strongly_ implies that you shouldn't be using 2014 Backgrounds anymore.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bagpuss said:


> Perhaps because it is was a stupid idea then and is still a stupid idea now. Although I do actually like bonuses are linked to background, I still think it was daft to divorce them completely from race.



Or perhaps because people keep getting all upsetti spaghetti about such a small thing that actually does make D&D more inclusive? Sometimes the squeaky wheel is the problem, not the indication that something else is going wrong.

The actual impact of individual variations within a given race will almost always be more important than the central tendency thereof. Sure, it may be the case that the average dwarf is stronger or tougher than the average human. _Adventurers, by definition, are not average people_.


----------



## Neonchameleon

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure. It's still a disclaimer indicating that certain uses of old material will be deprecated. It also _very strongly_ implies that you shouldn't be using 2014 Backgrounds anymore.



If you are using 2024 races then you definitely shouldn't be using 2014 backgrounds as you don't get an ASI with either.


----------



## Bagpuss

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure, it may be the case that the average dwarf is stronger or tougher than the average human. _Adventurers, by definition, are not average people_.




Your argument works against itself because that would make them be more likely to be the ones at the outlier values for their races, exhibiting values in the 90th percentile, rather than bland and average.


----------



## Aldarc

Bagpuss said:


> Your argument works against itself because that would make them be more likely to be the ones at the outlier values for their races, exhibiting values in the 90th percentile, rather than bland and average.



This feels like you are really grasping at straws for a counter-argument. You are welcome to provide your feedback in the playtest, but I'm not sure if people share your sentiments as to what constitutes a "stupid" or "daft" idea about races. This trend has been pretty evident for a while now.


----------



## cbwjm

Parmandur said:


> I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.



Oh man, I hope we see some changes to levels for subclasses!


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bagpuss said:


> Your argument works against itself because that would make them be more likely to be the ones at the outlier values for their races, exhibiting values in the 90th percentile, rather than bland and average.



No, it wouldn't. It would make them more likely to be outliers _of any kind_. That means we would expect to see lots of weird dwarves who don't have the strength and stamina their people are famous for, but instead some other set of attributes, which led them to walk very different paths and, as a result, made "travelling adventurer" a more appealing career path for them.

You don't JUST get the top 10%. You also get the BOTTOM 10%. And that's where all the weirdness is going to lie. The bell curve is not a one-sided distribution, and the tails are _very_ broad.


----------



## Ath-kethin

"If you still have Inspiration when you start a Long Rest, you lose that Inspiration." 

I know that feeling.


----------



## Ath-kethin

I also dig that sign language is a) listed and b) open to everyone.

Let's see what the future brings!


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> Eeeehhhhh… I would agree with you, except that spells have such specific flavor in D&D. If a fighter can move so fast that he’s functionally teleporting, I want it to be because he’s moving fast, not because he waved his hands in the right way and said the right words to manipulate The Weave of Magic to move him from one place to another in an instant.



Yes, I agree with you.  Like I said, I prefer more magic without spells.  I guess the 5e way would be to make them psionic abilities or some type of spellcasting with few or no components.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I play Level Up with added third party material, and hope to God they don't change LU to conform to this.



What would they even change that they haven't already changed for levelUp?

Character origins: already different in LevelUp
Feats: already different in LevlUp
Spells: Already different in level up
I guess they could change conditions to match? Changing the crits and 1 & 20 rolls is a non issue (as it cost nothing one way or the other to implement or remove). So I don't think you have to worry about LevelUp much, it is already Advanced 5e.


----------



## dave2008

Ixal said:


> No matter how well a human trains, a equally well trained gorilla will be stronger. Thats what racial ASI represents. A human would not be equal to a sentient gorilla, even when both have the same athlete background.



While I agree with you, I just don't think it is that important. D&D is a game that is trying to appeal to the most people. It is the flagship to bring people into the RPG gamesphere. I think WotC has a lot of data indicating that having the flexibility for players to make the characters they want it more important to that mission. It is a game first and foremost, not a simulation of a perceived reality. We need to accept that we are the minority and move on. The game works just fine either way.

Now there are two things I also want to point out:

You can always ignore the background ASI and assign them to races yourself, or add them on top of the background ASI.
This change didn't actually change anything about the abilities of a race. In all versions of 5e any character could get any stat to 20.  All races were functionally the same by their ability stats. (That is why I prefer ability limits instead of bonuses).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ixal said:


> And that is within the same race. Now add different races with vastly different biologies. Imagine if gorillas were sentient. No matter how well a human trains, a equally well trained gorilla will be stronger. Thats what racial ASI represents. A human would not be equal to a sentient gorilla, even when both have the same athlete background.



Except that strength isn't just direct physical power. No matter how a human trains an orc or goliath will be stronger _in that they will be able to lift more_. This is already included. (Well, technically a Str 20 human can match a Str 10 orc). IMO small armour should be half-weight and small creatures able to lift half as much but that ships sailed.

The other half of that is that no matter how the _gorilla_ trains a moderately trained human will be better at throwing rocks - another in the overarching category of things Strength covers. Meanwhile a good human climber is normally better than a good gorilla due to weight issues. These two factors are far more important to the game (and can gorillas even use spears?)


----------



## HammerMan

JEB said:


> Having to use my Google account was seriously giving me pause...



Not that I am saying you are wrong but why?  Isn’t google accounts like the easiest thing to make.  Like make 1dndplaytestet@gmail.com or something.


----------



## HammerMan

Parmandur said:


> That's precisely major component of why WotC designers have expressed regret at making it a later choice for some Classes: nobody actually waits till Level 3 to decide what kind of Rogue or Bard they want to be.



Yeah I think that we may see all subclasses at level 1 at least playtested


----------



## HammerMan

Aldarc said:


> This was an issue that several players at my tables had about the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. The players wanted some magic out of the gate,



This is why we always start at 3rd or higher level


Aldarc said:


> One issue that I could foresee is the problem that if they do combine them, then someone's warlock character concept will get screwed over. If they convert their character over to Nat 1 D&D but find out, for example, that all their Fiendlocks have the Chain Boon and are locked out of the other boons or that Feylocks can't be Bladelocks, then that may damper their spirits.



Yeah I have a friend playing a hex blade with tomb pact to get extra cantrips.  She will not be happy if they lock in things like this


----------



## HammerMan

Haplo781 said:


> Average value of 1d12 is 6.5. average value of 2d12 keep higher is 8.49.
> 
> It's an even worse value with smaller die sizes.



Retooling when you get the worst possible result is better then rolling 2 take the highest psychologicaly.


----------



## HammerMan

Charlaquin said:


> It’s possible that Magic Initiate is too strong to be a 1st level Feat. Or maybe the other 1st level Feats all need a boost to get on MI’s level. They’ll sort that out later, if leveled Feats pass the survey stage.



Too many things are locked behind spell casting. This HAS to remain a 1st level choice.


----------



## HammerMan

Bill Zebub said:


> So instead of the standard meaning, they meant 'backward' in the sense of 'the opposite of'?



I think they mean the DM side can still use adventures but players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB.


----------



## HammerMan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure. It's still a disclaimer indicating that certain uses of old material will be deprecated. It also _very strongly_ implies that you shouldn't be using 2014 Backgrounds anymore.



Yeah. Even equipment from backgrounds is changed up.  Now every background gets 50gp


----------



## HammerMan

dave2008 said:


> What would they even change that they haven't already changed for levelUp?
> 
> Character origins: already different in LevelUp
> Feats: already different in LevlUp
> Spells: Already different in level up
> I guess they could change conditions to match? Changing the crits and 1 & 20 rolls is a non issue (as it cost nothing one way or the other to implement or remove). So I don't think you have to worry about LevelUp much, it is already Advanced 5e.



It is an interesting thought. Not just level up but every 3rd party supplement (as of now only really PC facing ones) and how they will fit.


----------



## Ixal

EzekielRaiden said:


> Or perhaps because people keep getting all upsetti spaghetti about such a small thing that actually does make D&D more inclusive? Sometimes the squeaky wheel is the problem, not the indication that something else is going wrong.
> 
> The actual impact of individual variations within a given race will almost always be more important than the central tendency thereof. Sure, it may be the case that the average dwarf is stronger or tougher than the average human. _Adventurers, by definition, are not average people_.



And yet, when you compare a human and a dwarf adventurer of the same class you still end up with the dwarf being tougher than the human because he is a dwarf. You can't shake off your race and the average npc dwarf is equally affected as the average adventurer dwarf. No matter how odd and special he is, he is still a dwarf.

And no, to me its not a small thing. It represents the core of what the game is, one where you play a fictional role in a fictional world in which dwarfs are dwarfs with their own quirks in which case a dwarfs ASI stays no matter what class they play.
Or you play as a stat array of combat manoeuvres to have several tactical battles. In that case it doesn't matter what your race is, only your combat stats count. You are not playing a dwarven adventurer, you are playing the sword and shield tank.

Sadly with the change to floating and backgrounds ASI WotC caters to the latter. For them the "Role" in Role Playing Game seems now to mean combat role and they educate their players in that regard to always optimize their combat stats instead of playing something not optimal because you like the idea/role of it. Because in the end thats who the change to floating ASI is for. People who only something with optimal attributes for their combat role.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Ixal said:


> And yet, when you compare a human and a dwarf adventurer of the same class you still end up with the dwarf being tougher than the human because he is a dwarf. You can't shake off your race and the average npc dwarf is equally affected as the average adventurer dwarf. No matter how odd and special he is, he is still a dwarf.



Why? Why should it be the case that the weird bottom 0.1% of Dwarves are ALWAYS superior to the weird top 0.1% of humans?

Real actual live humans have HUGE amounts of variance on these things. Why are fantasy races so narrowly pigeonholed? Why are they dramatically more uniform than even a single nation's population IRL?


----------



## Ixal

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why? Why should it be the case that the weird bottom 0.1% of Dwarves are ALWAYS superior to the weird top 0.1% of humans?
> 
> Real actual live humans have HUGE amounts of variance on these things. Why are fantasy races so narrowly pigeonholed? Why are they dramatically more uniform than even a single nation's population IRL?



Please read what I write and don't build strawmans. In all my posts I specifically compared characters of equal standing and not "bottom 0.1% to top 0.1%"
The top 0.1% of humans will of course be tougher than the bottom 0.1% of dwarves. Thats what the standard array is for.
But when you compare the top 1% of dwarves to the top 1% of humans (top meaning characters that trained their endurance), the dwarves will be thougher because of their race. Thats consistent and just logical. One does not suddenly stop being a dwarf just because you become an adventurer.
The same way the middle or bottom 1% will also have the dwarves just a little bit tougher when compared with each other.

Also, see the edit above.


----------



## Remathilis

Ixal said:


> Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic.




I assume you are advocating for their removal from classes at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc levels then?


----------



## Aldarc

Ixal said:


> Please read what I write and don't build strawmans. In all my posts I specifically compared characters of equal standing and not "bottom 0.1% to top 0.1%"
> The top 0.1% of humans will of course be tougher than the bottom 0.1% of dwarves. Thats what the standard array is for.
> But when you compare the top 1% of dwarves to the top 1% of humans (top meaning characters that trained their endurance), the dwarves will be thougher because of their race. Thats consistent and just logical. One does not suddenly stop being a dwarf just because you become an adventurer.
> The same way the middle or bottom 1% will also have the dwarves just a little bit tougher when compared with each other.
> 
> Also, see the edit above.



How are we defining "tougher"? Dwarves are hardier by virtue of being more resistant against poisons and having 1 HP more than a human of equivalent stats per level.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Doesn’t actually matter, reroll on a 1 is +0.5 average whether you’re rolling a d4 or a d100.



Doing this in my head, and typing on my phone, while walking the puppy early in the morning. 

If you reroll ones, and have to keep the new result, then when computing the average you are replacing the ones with the old average. I.e. for a d4 tge average expected result is ( ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4, or (2.5 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4.  Looks to be like that increases the average expected result by 1.5/4, or 0.375. The general pattern is an increase of (AVG-1)/4. So 2.5/4 for d6, 3.5/4 for d8, etc.

But wait! Although smaller dice get a smaller increase, we really care about the _percent_ increase. That’s ((AVG-1)/D)/AVG which… I’m having trouble simplifying in my head.

Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.

EDIT: Oh, duh, there’s a simpler way: the increase is (D - 1)/2D, which gets larger with larger values of D. 

So re-rolling 1s is more advantageous for larger dice. But not by much. 

Unless I made a mistake.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> What would they even change that they haven't already changed for levelUp?
> 
> Character origins: already different in LevelUp
> Feats: already different in LevlUp
> Spells: Already different in level up
> I guess they could change conditions to match? Changing the crits and 1 & 20 rolls is a non issue (as it cost nothing one way or the other to implement or remove). So I don't think you have to worry about LevelUp much, it is already Advanced 5e.



I'm worried because I expect the majority of other 3pp products to be retooled to conform with this, as has been the case every time WotC made a noticeable change to the way they do things.  I cite as evidence Nix's Monster Manual Expanded series, which is as we speak being re-tooled to conform to MMotM.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> I assume you are advocating for their removal from classes at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc levels then?



I advocate for their removal.  I think people should just get feats at those levels.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Ixal said:


> Please read what I write and don't build strawmans. In all my posts I specifically compared characters of equal standing and not "bottom 0.1% to top 0.1%"
> The top 0.1% of humans will of course be tougher than the bottom 0.1% of dwarves. Thats what the standard array is for.
> But when you compare the top 1% of dwarves to the top 1% of humans (top meaning characters that trained their endurance), the dwarves will be thougher because of their race. Thats consistent and just logical. One does not suddenly stop being a dwarf just because you become an adventurer.
> The same way the middle or bottom 1% will also have the dwarves just a little bit tougher when compared with each other.
> 
> Also, see the edit above.



But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much _safer_ vocation.

We are, necessarily, going to be comparing _weird_ dwarves to _weird_ non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards _aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths_, are they?

It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living _above_ ground most of the time!)

This is, of course, completely separate from the two excellent arguments from @Remathilis (why are ASIs tied to advancing _class_ level if they are always inherent and never obtained through life experience and training? Surely your arguments indicate those should be removed too, and that's _not_ going to happen) and @Aldarc (dwarves _already are_ inherently tougher and hardier, as they have higher HP and a resistance to poisons and poison damage--why are ability scores _also_ needed when these features exist?)


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.



Reroll 1s and keep result for 1dN adds (N-1)/2N to the average result (N+1)/2.  The ratio of the difference to the average is (N-1)/[N*(N+1)]; like you said, it gets smaller with increasing die size.


----------



## Cadence

EzekielRaiden said:


> But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much _safer_ vocation.
> 
> We are, necessarily, going to be comparing _weird_ dwarves to _weird_ non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards _aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths_, are they?
> 
> It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living _above_ ground most of the time!)




Which still doesn't explain why the most extremely strong Goliath PC in history is no stronger than the most extremely strong Halfling PC.  Or the most extremely dextrous Elf PC is no more dextrous than the most extremely dextrous Dwarf PC  etc ..

But it's not like the ASIs at level one did much at all for that anyway. And if I'm going to grouse about unrealistic anywhere it's folks swimming or climbing as easily with a couple hundred pounds of gear on as without it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

HammerMan said:


> Yeah I think that we may see all subclasses at level 1 at least playtested



I would LOVE if we atleast playtest all classes working off the warlock chasie (2 subclasses, a bunch of at will and encounter abilities, and mini feats every few levels)


----------



## Ixal

EzekielRaiden said:


> But that assumption is incorrect. Adventurers, by definition, are weird. You are going to see massive over-representation of the unusual ends of the bell curve--both the weird because they hyper-exemplify their physiology, and the weird because they radically differ from it. Ordinary selective pressure (adventurers with poor stats do not survive as long as ones with good stats) and self-selection pressures (adventurers with low Strength are rarely going to pursue a career path as a Barbarian and other similar patterns) will provide a strong filter. Further, folk who fit in perfectly with their society's expectations aren't likely to gallivant off as adventurers, risking life and limb when they could pursue a much _safer_ vocation.
> 
> We are, necessarily, going to be comparing _weird_ dwarves to _weird_ non-dwarves, because they're adventurers. And the weird dwarf adventurers who choose to become bookish Wizards _aren't going to be the ones who exemplify typical dwarf strengths_, are they?
> 
> It's not a matter of "you stopped being a dwarf when you became an adventurer." It's "adventurers are already a weird, self-selected group that doesn't conform to social and, frequently, characteristic norms." Dwarves that already didn't fit in are the ones most likely to become adventurers in the first place. By your phrasing, it is "dwarves who decide to stop being dwarves" that are particularly likely to become adventurers. (There will, of course, also be at least partially-stereotypical dwarves who become adventurers, but it's pretty much inarguable that wandering adventuresome dwarves are deviating from the stereotypical dwarven culture's values, seeing as they're leaving their family and clan behind and usually living _above_ ground most of the time!)
> 
> This is, of course, completely separate from the two excellent arguments from @Remathilis (why are ASIs tied to advancing _class_ level if they are always inherent and never obtained through life experience and training? Surely your arguments indicate those should be removed too, and that's _not_ going to happen) and @Aldarc (dwarves _already are_ inherently tougher and hardier, as they have higher HP and a resistance to poisons and poison damage--why are ability scores _also_ needed when these features exist?)



Only that dwarves do not stop being dwarves (unless you have floating ASI). The "weird" in your eyes, bookish wizard dwarf still has a better constitution than the weird, bookish human wizard because of his racial heritage.


----------



## Aldarc

Cadence said:


> *Which still doesn't explain why the most extremely strong Goliath PC in history is no stronger than the most extremely strong Halfling PC.*  Or the most extremely dextrous Elf PC is no more dextrous than the most extremely dextrous Dwarf PC  etc ..
> 
> But it's not like the ASIs at level one did much at all for that anyway. And if I'm going to grouse about unrealistic anywhere it's folks swimming or climbing as easily with a couple hundred pounds of gear on as without it.



Don't Goliaths get proficiency in Athletics _and_ Powerful Build, which increases their carrying capacity? A Goliath will count as Large for determining how much they can carry, but a Halfling will count as Small for the same.


----------



## Galandris

My musings... Welcome to the nitpicker's edition (not everything here is in good faith, though it's exact).

1. It is possible to mix and match original material and compatible material since there is a note about how you can't benefit from ASIs twice, so if you're part of an ASI-granting race, and you take an ASI-granting background, you can't benefit from both ASIs.

2. A background is your character background, since "custom" is the default, where you insert reasons have your ASIs at the right place for your build, where you got your two skills, your tool, your second language and how you got your feat and equipment. My guess: many characters will be extraordinarily perceptive children and love their wizard uncle who taught them arcana on Wednesday afternoons.

3. The world of adventurers will be one of learned people. Every hero being at least trilingual. Barbarians have a better education level than 21st century graduate students.

4. Half-races are much more open than in the past. Everyone can interbreed with anyone, and the result is a character functionnaly identical to one of the parent race, with averaged lifespan and a few cosmetic details. There is no explanation of what happens if the half-something breed. Can they? I'd assume so, since infertility of the subrace would be mentionned. Can the newborn character pick one of the four racial ancestries if an orc-elf mate with a tortle-gnome? Given the extreme cosmopolitanism of settings and race-blindness prevalent in them, after a few tens of generations a city like Waterdeep would certainly have a racial makeup of "100% crossbreed, any child can manifest the racial features of any race". It would help households : "look, honey, I know you're an elf, but it's perfectly possible one of your ancestors was an aardling, explaining the bunny ears of our child...". Or is the child being only able to manifest the racial traits expressed in their parents? So many questions left unanswered! It would open the way for people to customize their race the same way they customize their background, if they could express traits through atavism.

5. Fantasy Humans... First in the listing, because alphabetization is only for the remainder of races. They range from 2ft to 7ft, so they don't reach the tallest real life human but encompass the shortest ones. Fantasy humans are either Small of Medium and all go at a speed of 30 ft. There was some time when Small races had a modicum of lack of speed (which was often overlooked in TotM) but now everyone is moving 30ft, so it makes sense in a weird way. Heroes drawn from Fantasy Humans (because it is made explicit that non-hero don't necessarily have access to those) share in common the ability to get Inspiration after a long rest (it's called Resourceful, though Morning glory fits better for heroic characters...) they get an extra skill proficiency and gets either Skilled Feat or another feat. So that's a strange way to write that they get a feat?

5bis. Custom lineage (Small or Medium, check, 30 ft speed, check, darkvision or skill proficency (a little better if you need darkvision but can emulate the skillful trait) lacks a morning inspiration but gets an original feat, many of which are superior to the compatible feats.

6. I fully expect everyone to be Small, since there is no drawback to it (hit dice are determined by class for heroes and speed is the same for all size, and they get the same carrying capacity, while opening a whole lot of tricks involving bags of holding.

6. No race does seem to grant weapon proficiencies and background can't give you one, so I guess they will be given exclusively by class features right now? It seems that if you're a wizard, you'll have to forego your elven bow if created using the 2024 rules.

7. Humans were created on Sigil, so it looks like the Ring of Siberys prevented humans to reach Eberron. Keith Baker did a great job so far to integrate everything Wizards published into kanon, but I think he'll have a tough job with this one.

8. Ardlings are animal-headed humans (except you can't be 2 ft tall, only 3), but can still be Small. They have an ability called flight, that allows them to jump (they need to reach a solid surface not to fall). So basically, Angelic Flight should be renamed to Gimped Flight. Unless they are a half-rabbit jumping 30 ft high. The good luck is that with a reasonable STR score of even 10, a Small Ardling can carry his whole team of other Small heroes while jumping (a team of 68 2ft heroes to be exact). A 30 ft chasm problem is no longer a drawback starting at level 1. Also, they are resistant to radiant damage and can cast a cantrip (and later a 1st level spell and a 2nd level spell) that you can cast once per long rest. As written, you can only cast the cantrip once, as well (since cantrips are spells and you can't recast a spell before finishing a long rest) but it's probably just not intended.

9. Dragonborns... They are bipedal, wingless dragons. Too bad for the fan arts giving them humanoid features like, you now, some definitely mammal apparatus. I am glad this was clarified. Unfortunately, the 5e wording had them combining the best of both origins is no longer here, so using natural reading, we can conclude that One dragonborns don't have opposable thumbs. For them, the adventure "you start in a tavern" will always continue with "spilling your beer over". They have a weak breath weapon, damage resistance depending on their scale color, darkvision and can instinctively speak draconic. Since Tasha, however, you can swap a language with another language, so they speak a second language, like Fantasy Humans.

10. Dwarf. They are average-sized fantasy humans (4-5 ft falling right in the middle of the 2-7 ft Fantasy Humans), hence the medium size. They can't be small, unlike fantasy humans, because the very word dwarf evokes someone with a... great size, apparently. They are god-crafted by a stone and forge god. They get instinctive proficiency with two tools associated with dwarves (that can be swapped using Tasha, of course). If you want to be a wizard with an innate knowledge of the way of the bow and a light sword, then dwarf is your obvious choice. They get tremorsense as long as it's one stone and a HP per level.

11. Elves. If you're playing an Elf, your shapeshifting ancestors plotted with Lolth to overthrow Corellon, or you'd be born on the Arvandor plane. Too bad for you, since Corellon is the epitome of the loyal evil jerk, he punishes you for the crimes of your (millenia-long) dead ancestors.  And he's still worshipped because he "forgave" you. Typical Stockholm syndrom! They get darkvision, proficiency in Perception that they could swap but never will, a limited spellcasting ability depending on lineage (any combination of spells is bound to appear as supplements give us  the much needed 283 elven subtypes every decent campaign needs. Corellon also cursed you with Trance instad of sleep, so that means you'll be the designated guard during the night. Hey, you're even proficient in Perception... High elves are still the best (an arcane cantrip that you can change each rest, the moderately useful Detect Magic and Misty Step...)

12. While there is not a lot to say about gnomes, the compatible halflings are faster than the original ones. (Whether this is to harmonize tabletop playing through the One way of online playing remains to be seen.

13. Orcs are interesting. While Elves are all descendants of treacherous persons who betrayed their god, and such god was a jerk, the orcs were created by the benevolent Gruumsh, an "unstoppable warrior and powerful leader". This Alexander or Napoleon like god gave "gifts" to his children (what a tender and caring god) to fight monsters, not elves, silly. Orcs don't need to worship Gruumsh (but why wouldn't they, he's such a nice guy?), since he's so forgving that even if you lose your marbles and start worshipping Corellon, he'll continue giving you his gifts. They are told of their ancestors conflits (most probably, defensive wars initiated by humans, elves and dwarves) and just want to emulate their ancestor's glory in battle.

14. Now, backgrounds. They gives you ASIs (that you can't stack explicitely with racial ASIs... they saw the loophole of the original mountain dwarf warrior taking a compatible background and starting with +4 STR, +3 CON.

15. An original vuman or custom lineage would have a good time stacking the original Lucky and the compatible lucky. 5-8 rolls with advantage per long rest is often enough to last the day...

16. Taking the original half-feats would certainly be the optimum choice over taking a compatible feat to ensure starting with a 18 at tables that use the standard array or point-buy.

17. Characters are missing 5% of the time, even from extremely easy rolls. At least it's not a fumble, just a regular failure. Still, missing the tarrasque at point-blank range...

18. Rolling a 20 gives you inspiration, so it's not just a mechanism for rewarding good roleplaying. I expect that it will make people remember more about inspiration. And less about good roleplaying.

19. Critical hits are being nerfed, since you don't reroll and add all damage dice, but only the Weapon damage. No more sneak attacking rogues rolling buckets of d6s on a critical unless they word it carefully in the Rogue class description. It is also possible, now, to have a weapon damage that does... no damage dice. Net and blowguns, maybe? Were people using those routinely?

20. All musical instruments now cost 20gp. Starting characters should spend a few day constructing maracas to resell them at resell value (10gp) for a few days to finance their full plate armour. On the other hand, the situation of peasants in setting just got worse. They had a bad lot, but now they can't even play music to spend the time between two wandering monsters attack on their village. Maracas at 200 days of unskilled labor are a nerf to the peasantry of One.


----------



## Cadence

Aldarc said:


> Don't Goliaths not get proficiency in Athletics _and_ Powerful Build, which increases their carrying capacity? A Goliath will count as Large for determining how much they can carry, but a Halfling will count as Small for the same.



There is no small penalty for carrying capacity is there in 5e?  So make it Or or Dwarf or Human vs Halfling for the Str comparison.  I guess?

But it's not like the stats within human are based on physical build either.  So I'm good with the game glossing it instead of adding in tons of things.

---

Is unarmed damage size based on 5e for small vs. med?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm worried because I expect the majority of other 3pp products to be retooled to conform with this, as has been the case every time WotC made a noticeable change to the way they do things.  I cite as evidence Nix's Monster Manual Expanded series, which is as we speak being re-tooled to conform to MMotM.



I wonder what the 3pp that don't have there own version of a PHB are talking about today


----------



## Aldarc

Cadence said:


> There is no small penalty for carrying capacity is there in 5e?  So make it Or or Dwarf or Human vs Halfling for the Str comparison.  I guess?
> 
> But it's not like the stats within human are based on physical build either.  So I'm good with the game glossing it instead of adding in tons of things.



You are right that there is no difference between Small and Medium, but there is definitely a difference in carrying capacity between Medium and Large.


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> So instead of the standard meaning, they meant 'backward' in the sense of 'the opposite of'?



Nope, this is all backwards compatible: note that theybintend people to use these as modules on the 2014 chases for playtesting...because it's backwards compatible. They explain their philosophy on thisnin the FAQ.


----------



## Stalker0

Charlaquin said:


> I wouldn’t sweat the power of individual Fears too much. As the sidebar says, they’ll get tweaked to bring them to the desired power level later, if they survive this initial vibe check




considering just how bad the feat balance is right now, and how little was done to change it, I don’t share your confidence. That’s why we need to bring these things up right at the beginning in survey 1.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> I advocate for their removal. I think people should just get feats at those levels.



Then what about feats that grant +1 ASI?

If ability scores are a function of genetics, then there should be no way to change them barring powerful magics. Not by feats, levels or class.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder what the 3pp that don't have there own version of a PHB are talking about today




How bad Now or Still "One D&D Compatible" will look on the cover?


----------



## Minigiant

Ixal said:


> Only that dwarves do not stop being dwarves (unless you have floating ASI). The "weird" in your eyes, bookish wizard dwarf still has a better constitution than the weird, bookish human wizard because of his racial heritage.



The real issue is that the mere +2 most races get is not enough to matter.

A CON 16 dwarf isn't that much tougher than s CON 14 human. Not to the point that fans hype it up.  If they have an beer drinking contest, the dwarf can lose if they roll a 10 and the elf rolls a 12.

If D&D is too scared to give core races +8 to ability scores from race, then the +2 is just not worth the secondary hassles. Because mechanically, *it doesn't match the fluff.*


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Galandris said:


> 3. The world of adventurers will be one of learned people. Every hero being at least trilingual. Barbarians have a better education level than 21st century graduate students.



I mean that is only true for Americans right?


Galandris said:


> 6. No race does seem to grant weapon proficiencies and background can't give you one, so I guess they will be given exclusively by class features right now? It seems that if you're a wizard, you'll have to forego your elven bow if created using the 2024 rules.



but somehow dwarves get tool prof


Galandris said:


> 7. Humans were created on Sigil,



I'm not sure that flavor is worth anything


----------



## Krachek

Charlaquin said:


> Yup, now PCs grapple the same way monsters have been doing it this whole time. Good change, in my opinion.



Also makes Monk able to grapple and shove with their dex unarmed attacks.


----------



## Horwath

crit no longer doubles sneak attack?
As rogues and assassing were not bad enough...

Maybe assassin will get the feature that sneak attack also crits, or something.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder what the 3pp that don't have there own version of a PHB are talking about today



Probably about how their business plans are ruined.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> I think they mean the DM side can still use adventures but players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB.



Nah, these can be mixed and matched: we are already doing it, since as Crawford confirmed the Monsteof the Multiverse options are made alongside these.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Cadence said:


> How bad Now or Still "One D&D Compatible" will look on the cover?



I meant how they are adjusting races and backgrounds... if they are worried about OTHER things being on the change block as well.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bill Zebub said:


> Doing this in my head, and typing on my phone, while walking the puppy early in the morning.
> 
> If you reroll ones, and have to keep the new result, then when computing the average you are replacing the ones with the old average. I.e. for a d4 tge average expected result is ( ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4, or (2.5 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4.  Looks to be like that increases the average expected result by 1.5/4, or 0.375. The general pattern is an increase of (AVG-1)/4. So 2.5/4 for d6, 3.5/4 for d8, etc.
> 
> But wait! Although smaller dice get a smaller increase, we really care about the _percent_ increase. That’s ((AVG-1)/D)/AVG which… I’m having trouble simplifying in my head.
> 
> Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, duh, there’s a simpler way: the increase is (D - 1)/2D, which gets larger with larger values of D.
> 
> So re-rolling 1s is more advantageous for larger dice. But not by much.
> 
> Unless I made a mistake.



The "formally correct" way--that is, the one which correctly captures all the statistics with no simplification--is that you need to expand out each result into the number of faces on the die, and then replace the N faces that show 1 with [1,...,N]. With d4, that looks like this: d{1,2,3,4,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4}. Alternatively, you can think of it as becoming an N^2 sided die, where you have a single 1, and then the remaining values appear N+1 times. You'll get the same _average_ value if you just enter 1d{(N+1)/2,2,3,...,N} but you won't get the same overall statistical behavior.

Having crunched those numbers, I can now say that the _ceiling_ of the change appears to be 0.5, as noted above. That is, we get:

d4 average improves from 2.5 to 2.88; SD falls from 1.12 to 0.93
d6 average improves from 3.5 to 3.92; SD falls from 1.71 to 1.48
d8 average improves from 4.5 to 4.94; SD falls from 2.29 to 2.05
d10 average improves from 5.5 to 5.95; SD falls from 2.87 to 2.62
d12 average improves from 6.5 to 6.96; SD falls from 3.45 to 3.19

It's rather tedious to calculate anything beyond d12 and pretty much irrelevant so I'm not going to do the full, formal numbers for any higher die values (and sure as heck not d20). If you like data visualization, you can look at plots for these with this AnyDice program.

But we can certainly say that, while the increase in the average always goes up, it pretty well appears to be bounded from above by 0.5, and thus the _percentage_ increase is always lower for larger dice. This might not be true for broader ranges, e.g. if you could reroll 1 or 2 this way, the benefit might grow rather than shrink. (We could imagine, frex, if every value less than the average could be rerolled once, then the average benefit surely should not _shrink_ with higher die values.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Horwath said:


> crit no longer doubles sneak attack?
> As rogues and assassing were not bad enough...
> 
> Maybe assassin will get the feature that sneak attack also crits, or something.



maybe built into Assassinate, cause that is a MAJOR downgrade for assassin.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I advocate for their removal.  I think people should just get feats at those levels.



Omg we agree on something.


----------



## Ixal

Minigiant said:


> The real issue is that the mere +2 most races get is not enough to matter.
> 
> A CON 16 dwarf isn't that much tougher than s CON 14 human. Not to the point that fans hype it up.  If they have an beer drinking contest, the dwarf can lose if they roll a 10 and the elf rolls a 12.
> 
> If D&D is too scared to give core races +8 to ability scores from race, then the +2 is just not worth the secondary hassles. Because mechanically, *it doesn't match the fluff.*



And yet players refuse to miss out on this +2 and complain endlessly that racial ASI prevents them from playing non optimal race/class combinations.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

HammerMan said:


> I think they mean the DM side can still use adventures but players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB.



yeah I think backwards compatible means "for DMs that want to put in the work it isn't 'THAT much' work" not "yeah people will sit at tables with the 2014phb and 2024phb and not even notice.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Then what about feats that grant +1 ASI?
> 
> If ability scores are a function of genetics, then there should be no way to change them barring powerful magics. Not by feats, levels or class.



My concern is less genetics, and more that I don't think ability scores should increase so fast, and that I like feats.  I've already said I prefer Level Up's origin systems to literally any version WotC has ever produced.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> Doing this in my head, and typing on my phone, while walking the puppy early in the morning.
> 
> If you reroll ones, and have to keep the new result, then when computing the average you are replacing the ones with the old average. I.e. for a d4 tge average expected result is ( ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4, or (2.5 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4.  Looks to be like that increases the average expected result by 1.5/4, or 0.375. The general pattern is an increase of (AVG-1)/4. So 2.5/4 for d6, 3.5/4 for d8, etc.
> 
> But wait! Although smaller dice get a smaller increase, we really care about the _percent_ increase. That’s ((AVG-1)/D)/AVG which… I’m having trouble simplifying in my head.
> 
> Let’s see, replace both averages with D / 2 + 0.5, because we want to solve for D, and…we have a quadratic. (See? There was a use for those after all!) I’ll finish this when I can sit down.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, duh, there’s a simpler way: the increase is (D - 1)/2D, which gets larger with larger values of D.
> 
> So re-rolling 1s is more advantageous for larger dice. But not by much.
> 
> Unless I made a mistake.



Yeah, I caught the mistake myself later as well. But I appreciate the analysis!


----------



## Cadence

Ixal said:


> And yet players refuse to miss out on this +2 and complain endlessly that racial ASI prevents them from playing non optimal race/class combinations.



A +2 bonus might be adequate for showing the difference in strength between a gold medalist weight lifter and a typical competitive weight lifter.

It seems completely inadequate for showing the difference in strength between a typical offensive lineman and typical jockey.


----------



## Bill Zebub

EzekielRaiden said:


> The "formally correct" way--that is, the one which correctly captures all the statistics with no simplification--is that you need to expand out each result into the number of faces on the die, and then replace the N faces that show 1 with [1,...,N]. With d4, that looks like this: d{1,2,3,4,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4}.




Oh, please.  There is no "formally correct" in mathematics, there is only correct and incorrect.  ((1,2,3,4) 2, 3, 4) is identical to your approach.  Just multiply through.

One of the most damaging things taught in school is that there is a "correct" way to solve math problems.  Or maybe that doing arithmetic is doing math.  Or that some people are bad at it.  (There are a lot of contenders for that title.)




EzekielRaiden said:


> Alternatively, you can think of it as becoming an N^2 sided die, where you have a single 1, and then the remaining values appear N+1 times. You'll get the same _average_ value if you just enter 1d{(N+1)/2,2,3,...,N} but you won't get the same overall statistical behavior.
> 
> Having crunched those numbers, I can now say that the _ceiling_ of the change appears to be 0.5, as noted above. That is, we get:
> 
> d4 average improves from 2.5 to 2.88; SD falls from 1.12 to 0.93
> d6 average improves from 3.5 to 3.92; SD falls from 1.71 to 1.48
> d8 average improves from 4.5 to 4.94; SD falls from 2.29 to 2.05
> d10 average improves from 5.5 to 5.95; SD falls from 2.87 to 2.62
> d12 average improves from 6.5 to 6.96; SD falls from 3.45 to 3.19
> 
> It's rather tedious to calculate anything beyond d12 and pretty much irrelevant so I'm not going to do the full, formal numbers for any higher die values (and sure as heck not d20). If you like data visualization, you can look at plots for these with this AnyDice program.
> 
> But we can certainly say that, while the increase in the average always goes up, it pretty well appears to be bounded from above by 0.5, and thus the _percentage_ increase is always lower for larger dice. This might not be true for broader ranges, e.g. if you could reroll 1 or 2 this way, the benefit might grow rather than shrink. (We could imagine, frex, if every value less than the average could be rerolled once, then the average benefit surely should not _shrink_ with higher die values.)




Uh, yeah.  Same result.  But (D-1)/2D doesn't require 'crunching'. Plug infinity into my formula and you get (infinity - 1) / (2 * infinity) = (drumroll...) 0.5

Plug in 1 (for a 1-sided die) and you get 0.
Plug in 2 and you get 0.25

But the mistake I actually did make is that I shifted back to solving the absolute increase, not the percentage increase. I would have to divide through again by D/2+0.5.  So yeah, the % goes down as the die gets larger.

EDIT: Doing the last step...on paper not in my head...an equation for the percentage increase is (D-1)/(D^2+D). Which does indeed get smaller as D gets larger (going to zero as D goes to infinity.  Which makes sense.)


----------



## Galandris

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah I think backwards compatible means "for DMs that want to put in the work it isn't 'THAT much' work" not "yeah people will sit at tables with the 2014phb and 2024phb and not even notice.




Honestly? Yes, they are touting compatibility as "don't worry, all your books don't just became worthless", especially adventures they don't intend to reprint (and therefore, still sell) and they don't intend to ensure compatibility (like the odd effects of staking original feats and compatible feats). However, it will be difficult if they don't put a tag on the 2024 PHB saying it's a not the D&D PHB we know (and still hold). In a group with, say, 3 copies, and one is replaced because it's overused, they won't have compatible options... My guess is that they'll move to an all-digital model at some point, if that's where the bulk of their profit is.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean that is only true for Americans right?




Maybe more but even in Europe it's quite rare to have students fluent in 3 languages. They might be "reasonably fluent" in one foreign language, but the second language is ususally... barely enough to communicate that you want a beer in a bar. (B1 proficiency level, that students are expected to hold in the EU referential, if you're familiar with it, is really not enough to get by).


GMforPowergamers said:


> I'm not sure that flavor is worth anything




Honestly, it's worthless, yes. But I'd prefer my rules to be divorced from settings.


----------



## Umbran

HammerMan said:


> I’m fine with genetics  not being a big part of fantasy, but the basic idea of how breeding works should be considered. (Like someone domesticated horses and dogs IN your world so I think it fair to say people can assume that trait breeding works most but not all times.




Exactly.  So, we can easily support the idea that _the population_ of dwarves or elves typically have some usual stats, without having _every single individual_ follow that pattern.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah I think backwards compatible means "for DMs that want to put in the work it isn't 'THAT much' work" not "yeah people will sit at tables with the 2014phb and 2024phb and not even notice.



I mean, we sat at the table with 3E and 3.5 books intermixed and didn't notice when I was in the primary target audience of the game in College.


----------



## Medic

Justice and Rule said:


> No, the problem with this is that you're thinking about it in reverse: this is not so that my Cleric can have a charisma boost, but rather that I can play a Half-Orc Cleric and not be immediately confined by having to be strong and tough, but rather one that is wise and charismatic.
> 
> People keep looking at this from "min-maxing" and that's half-right and half-wrong: rather, it's making it so that people don't have to optimally choose their race to fit their class. Elvish Barbarians, Dwarfish Rogues, Gnomish Fighters, etc. Instead of someone looking at an elf and saying "Well, I have to fit this to best advantage my Dex bonus", they can play an elf that is wise and charismatic but also clumsy. You can now play a sickly dwarf who became booksmart because he couldn't do regular dwarfish tasks.



A dwarf scholar-wizard starts the game with 15 Intelligence and proficiency in the Arcana skill, granting them a +4 bonus to Arcana checks, a +4 bonus to spell attack rolls, and a spell save DC of 12. This is measurably better than the human baseline of +0 to Arcana checks and no spellcasting, making this dwarf a distinguished individual that is smarter and more learned than most people, even those of a species with a +2 to Intelligence.

A gnome scholar-wizard starts the game with 17 Intelligence and proficiency in the Arcana skill, granting them a +5 bonus to Arcana checks, a +5 bonus to spell attack rolls, and a spell save DC of 13. They are only marginally better than their dwarf counterpart, the difference is functionally imperceptible in play. You could always create a dwarf that is book smart and sickly with the core rules without incurring any significant penalty.

We agree that ASIs do not distinguish races in any meaningful way. They are essentially fluff, non-essential unless your objective is to increase they key ability score of your class. Having said that, I would still not create a hypothetical elf barbarian with the template presented in this playtest material - their traits do not synergize with the barbarian class as well as those of other races.


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> But the mistake I actually made is that I shifted back to solving the actual increase, not the percentage increase. I would have to divide through again by D/2+0.5.  So yeah, the % goes down as the die gets larger.



Some helpful formulas:

Average of 1dN: (N+1)/2

Damage increase on 1dN, reroll and keep on rolls of 1 to R: R*(N-R)/2N

New average damage on 1dN, reroll and keep on roll of 1 to R: N^2-R^2+N(R+1)/2N

Proportion damage increase (damage increase / old average): R(N-R)/N(N+1)


----------



## Minigiant

Ixal said:


> *.*





Ixal said:


> And yet players refuse to miss out on this +2 and complain endlessly that racial ASI prevents them from playing non optimal race/class combinations.



It matters in combat.

The point is that +2 doesn't represent the huge difference many fans describe the difference between races. +2 STR is just a few pounds of weight lifted. It isn't 200lbs.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I mean, we sat at the table with 3E and 3.5 books intermixed and didn't notice when I was in the primary target audience of the game in College.



okay, but do you understand that isn't the common story... not here, not at cons, not at stores, and definitely not with organized play... unless you mean you had the 3e book plus errata it to the 3.5 book.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> I mean, we sat at the table with 3E and 3.5 books intermixed and didn't notice when I was in the primary target audience of the game in College.



I think unless the feedback on changes is harshly negative (which I doubt, as even here in grogland it's broadly positive with some concerns), we'll be looking at much larger changes than 3.5, overall, particularly in that I suspect more classes and subclasses will be tweaked/changed than 3.5, and they'll be changed more than most classes were in 3.5.

So I think the situation will be a bit different. It'll be more like the 1E/2E situation. In 2E you could pretty much just run 1E classes/races (like those in Oriental Adventures), with close to no work, but you did notice, and sometimes it did create issues, and they were only compatible with themselves. But because D&D uses this exception-based model that kind of doesn't matter unless you try do something like apply a 2E Kit to a 1E class. So like, I don't think we can necessarily expect a 1D&D Monk subclass to be possible to apply to a 5E Monk, or vice-versa, but a 5E Monk can probably play alongside a 1D&D Monk and whilst being somewhat different will likely be at a similar level of power (just as all 5E characters sort of cluster where if the strongest is 10/10 power, the weakest is like 6.8/10 power - so the 1D&D Monk might be 8.5 to the 7.0 of the 5E Monk, but that's still totally playable).


----------



## HammerMan

Umbran said:


> Exactly.  So, we can easily support the idea that _the population_ of dwarves or elves typically have some usual stats, without having _every single individual_ follow that pattern.



100%


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay, but do you understand that isn't the common story... not here, not at cons, not at stores, and definitely not with organized play... unless you mean you had the 3e book plus errata it to the 3.5 book.



Convention and store play isn't normative, only a fraction of players interact with that. Loose goosey mixing is the norm from what I can see.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> It seems completely inadequate for showing the difference in strength between a typical offensive lineman and typical jockey.




That's the paradox in the arguments for why fixed racial ASIs are so necessary.  It amounts to "Goliaths are way stronger than Halflings, and that should be represented by a +1 on d20."  You'd have to give them +10 strength for it to even begin to address the realism argument.

A colorful racial ability goes so much farther in portraying the strength of a Goliath than does an ASI.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think unless the feedback on changes is harshly negative (which I doubt, as even here in grogland it's broadly positive with some concerns), we'll be looking at much larger changes than 3.5, overall, particularly in that I suspect more classes and subclasses will be tweaked/changed than 3.5, and they'll be changed more than most classes were in 3.5.
> 
> So I think the situation will be a bit different. It'll be more like the 1E/2E situation. In 2E you could pretty much just run 1E classes/races (like those in Oriental Adventures), with close to no work, but you did notice, and sometimes it did create issues, and they were only compatible with themselves. But because D&D uses this exception-based model that kind of doesn't matter unless you try do something like apply a 2E Kit to a 1E class.



Except this time they are designing to facilitate that mixing on purpose, which I'm not sure they did with 2E (though maybe theybdid?).


----------



## Bill Zebub

TwoSix said:


> Proportion damage increase (damage increase / old average): R(N-R)/N(N+1)




And replace the R with 1 and you get...(N-1)/(N^2+N)

But in general I dislike "helpful formulas".  We teach those in school, and test memorization of them, and people think that's how you're "supposed" to solve things, and wind up unable to solve anything for which they haven't memorized (or have forgotten) the formula.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> That's the paradox in the arguments for why fixed racial ASIs are so necessary.  It amounts to "Goliaths are way stronger than Halflings, and that should be represented by a +1 on d20."  You'd have to give them +10 strength for it to even begin to address the realism argument.
> 
> A colorful racial ability goes so much farther in portraying the strength of a Goliath than does an ASI.



Sure, but what's colorful about Powerful Build?


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Parmandur said:


> Except this time they are designing to facilitate that mixing on purpose, which I'm not sure they did with 2E (though maybe theybdid?).



At least they are claiming to do so. Time will tell if they pull it off.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think unless the feedback on changes is harshly negative (which I doubt, as even here in grogland it's broadly positive with some concerns), we'll be looking at much larger changes than 3.5, overall, particularly in that I suspect more classes and subclasses will be tweaked/changed than 3.5, and they'll be changed more than most classes were in 3.5.
> 
> So I think the situation will be a bit different. It'll be more like the 1E/2E situation. In 2E you could pretty much just run 1E classes/races (like those in Oriental Adventures), with close to no work, but you did notice, and sometimes it did create issues, and they were only compatible with themselves. But because D&D uses this exception-based model that kind of doesn't matter unless you try do something like apply a 2E Kit to a 1E class.



Personally, I think spells are going to be where a lot of the pain points might arise when you start to run pre and post revision material together at a table.  Making an early judgment from feats, they're going to be quite willing to have the same named object (whether that be a feat name or a spell name) use very different rules.  And what makes spells distinct is that they aren't personal to the character, they have an in-fiction existence that's shared among all the characters, and the NPCs as well.

So DMs are going to have to say "Ok, we're only going to use the revised version of the spells at this table, but we'll still use the old versions of spells X, Y, and Z because I like those versions better."  It's not a case where the guy happily playing his half-elf wizard from 2014 can just use the spells from his 2014 book without causing some ripples at the table.


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> And replace the R with 1 and you get...(N-1)/(N^2+N)
> 
> But in general I dislike "helpful formulas".  We teach those in school, and people think that's how you're "supposed" to solve things, and wind up unable to solve anything for which they haven't memorized (or have forgotten) the formula.



In my defense, I just re-derived them this morning.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> Some helpful formulas:
> 
> Average of 1dN: (N+1)/2
> 
> Damage increase on 1dN, reroll and keep on rolls of 1 to R: R*(N-R)/2N
> 
> New average damage on 1dN, reroll and keep on roll of 1 to R: N^2-R^2+N(R+1)/2N
> 
> Proportion damage increase (damage increase / old average): R(N-R)/N(N+1)




Do you have the standard deviation formula for the new average damage so that I don't use finding it as an excuse to avoid work?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but what's colorful about Powerful Build?




I'm....not sure how to answer that.  Are you saying you _don't_ find Powerful Build to be less colorful/evocative/flavorful than +2 Str?

I keep hearing that without fixed racial ASIs the races are all identical.  But if that's true, then Elves and Halflings and Tabaxi are already "identical".  Do you find that to be true?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Convention and store play isn't normative, only a fraction of players interact with that. Loose goosey mixing is the norm from what I can see.





Parmandur said:


> Except this time they are designing to facilitate that mixing on purpose, which I'm not sure they did with 2E (though maybe theybdid?).



i'm not sure you can say for sure one way or the other on either of these... and I will take my 'not normative' experence with 100's of players over your 'normative' with a few friends


----------



## Bill Zebub

TwoSix said:


> In my defense, I just re-derived them this morning.




Music to my ears.


----------



## rooneg

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think unless the feedback on changes is harshly negative (which I doubt, as even here in grogland it's broadly positive with some concerns), we'll be looking at much larger changes than 3.5, overall, particularly in that I suspect more classes and subclasses will be tweaked/changed than 3.5, and they'll be changed more than most classes were in 3.5.



I hope that's the case (since I want some pretty significant changes to some classes), but I remain curious how much they'll let themselves be constrained by a desire to be backwards compatible with subclasses in old books. We'll know a lot more once the class playtest docs start dropping. Agreed though that I don't expect there to be some massive outcry, most people I've talked to are broadly positive what we've seen so far.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, please. There is no "formally correct" in mathematics, there is only correct and incorrect. ((1,2,3,4) 2, 3, 4) is identical to your approach. Just multiply through.



There is when statistical distributions are involved. You cannot get the correct standard deviation from 1d{2.5, 2, 3, 4}--because "2.5" is not actually a value you can roll on the die. It _will_ give you the correct average, but it will not give you the correct SD. SD of 1d{2.5,2,3,4} is very close to 0.829, while the SD of 1d{1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4} is almost exactly 0.927. The informal simplification works if the only thing you care about is the average, but it doesn't work for everything. Which is why I said what I said.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I'm willing to bet that while technically possible, mixing and matching 1D&D and 5e character options is going to be more awkward than it's worth, so that by 2025 most tables will be using one or the other almost exclusively.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> And replace the R with 1 and you get...(N-1)/(N^2+N)
> 
> But in general I dislike "helpful formulas".  We teach those in school, and test memorization of them, and people think that's how you're "supposed" to solve things, and wind up unable to solve anything for which they haven't memorized (or have forgotten) the formula.




Edit: Just saw the post a couple down.  Completely agree that teaching there is one true way to solve things is awful.

---

I agree to a point...

_Insert Rant_

I certainly expect our  stat majors and grad students to be able to derive stuff.  But after they've shown they know what's what I'm not going to say they can't look up and use the formulas for a standard distribution or other result if they haven't done that particular derivation before themselves.  (I'm sorry, you only "proved" the CLT for the binomial, and even then you glossed a lot of the MGF things, so no CLT for you!).

For the humanities majors in our general education stat course I'd be happy if they could quickly calculate and interpret a sample mean for a small sample and contrast it's properties with the median, and give me the hand wavy interpretation of the standard deviation  and some of the weaknesses it has, and use a formula correctly if given one.  (Bonus points if they remember why we use SD instead of the mean absolute deviation).  Making them derive the formulas for the mean and standard deviation  of a distribution  before sharing it with them feels like a pharmacist not letting me use a medication until I can demonstrate how to make it on my own.

I'm guessing a lot of folks on here aren't stat majors?

_End Rant_


----------



## Bill Zebub

EzekielRaiden said:


> There is when statistical distributions are involved. You cannot get the correct standard deviation from 1d{2.5, 2, 3, 4}--because "2.5" is not actually a value you can roll on the die. It _will_ give you the correct average, but it will not give you the correct SD. SD of 1d{2.5,2,3,4} is very close to 0.829, while the SD of 1d{1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4} is almost exactly 0.927. The informal simplification works if the only thing you care about is the average, but it doesn't work for everything. Which is why I said what I said.




Except we're starting from the same point with ((1,2,3,4),2,3,4):

1) I wanted to compute the average, so I found the inner average first because it's the simplest way.
2) You wanted to compute the SD (why, I don't know) so you expanded out, then started your explanation with the next step.

I'm not quibbling with your approach; just with the notion that the standard way we are taught to do things is the "formally correct" way.  I think it's incredibly damaging to use that language...to convey that misconception...to learners.


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> Do you have the standard deviation formula for the new average damage so that I don't use finding it as an excuse to avoid work?



Working out a formula is a bit more time than I want to invest.   I mean, for values from 1 to R, each value will occur R times; for values from R+1 to N, each value will occur N+R times, over a total population of values that's N^2.  I'm sure it could be calculated from that, but seems much easier just to do analytically.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> I agree to a point...
> 
> _Insert Rant_
> 
> I certainly expect our  stat majors and grad students to be able to derive stuff.  But after they've shown they know what's what I'm not going to say they can't look up and use the formulas for a standard distribution or other result if they haven't done that particular derivation before themselves.  (I'm sorry, you only "proved" the CLT for the binomial, and even then you glossed a lot of the MGF things, so no CLT for you!).
> 
> For the humanities majors in our general education stat course I'd be happy if they could quickly calculate and interpret a sample mean and contrast it's properties with the median, and give me the hand wavy interpretation of the standard deviation  and some of the weaknesses it has, and use a formula correctly.  (Bonus points if they can explain why we use SD instead of mean absolute deviation).  Making them derive the formulas for the mean and standard deviation  of a distribution  before sharing it with them feels like a pharmacist not letting me use a medication until I can demonstrate how to make it on my own.
> 
> I'm guessing a lot of folks on here aren't stat majors?
> 
> _End Rant_




Totally derailing the thread now.  The problem I have with your rant is the assumption that people can't do this unless they are stat majors (or otherwise are 'math people').  Which I think most people would agree with.

I disagree, because I think that distinction...between math people and non-math people...is the result of that assumption.  It's not circular: it starts with the mistaken assumption.  We think people need to memorize formulae and algorithms because they won't be able to actually understand the logic, so we teach them to memorize...and they never end up actually understanding.

I'll stop there, but I would encourage anybody/everybody to read Paul Lockhart: 
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'm willing to bet that while technically possible, mixing and matching 1D&D and 5e character options is going to be more awkward than it's worth, so that by 2025 most tables will be using one or the other almost exclusively.



I bet that for most tables it will be 2014 phb or 2024phb... I do wonder though, will there be 2014+tasha +motm tables that just do 1/2 upgrade?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

rooneg said:


> I hope that's the case (since I want some pretty significant changes to some classes), but I remain curious how much they'll let themselves be constrained by a desire to be backwards compatible with subclasses in old books. We'll know a lot more once the class playtest docs start dropping. Agreed though that I don't expect there to be some massive outcry, most people I've talked to are broadly positive what we've seen so far.



The thing is, if they make any significant changes to the core class at all, it's likely to become incompatible with some subclasses, and once that happens, there's no point trying to make it compatible with others - it'd almost be worse to have, say, a 6E Fighter compatible with 50% of old subclasses than one cleanly compatible with 0%. And it's not breaking their word if 5E classes only work with 5E subclasses, so long as mechanically they fit into the 6E system generally.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> Personally, I think spells are going to be where a lot of the pain points might arise when you start to run pre and post revision material together at a table.  Making an early judgment from feats, they're going to be quite willing to have the same named object (whether that be a feat name or a spell name) use very different rules.  And what makes spells distinct is that they aren't personal to the character, they have an in-fiction existence that's shared among all the characters, and the NPCs as well.
> 
> So DMs are going to have to say "Ok, we're only going to use the revised version of the spells at this table, but we'll still use the old versions of spells X, Y, and Z because I like those versions better."  It's not a case where the guy happily playing his half-elf wizard from 2014 can just use the spells from his 2014 book without causing some ripples at the table.



Absolutely agree - I hadn't thought about this yet but you're right, and I think there's significant appetite for rules changes to quite a few spells (and even some spells being maybe... deleted or at least profoundly reworked), so I think that definitely won't get a ton of pushback.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> A +2 bonus might be adequate for showing the difference in strength between a gold medalist weight lifter and a typical competitive weight lifter.
> 
> It seems completely inadequate for showing the difference in strength between a typical offensive lineman and typical jockey.



A jockey would have a strength of 10-12.


----------



## Jahydin

When it comes to attributes, I think PF2e knocked this out of the park.

All stats start at 10.
Race gives a fixed stat bonuses and a stat penalty, but then you get to pick another as well.
Background gives a fixed stat bonus, but then you get to pick another as well.
Class gives a fixed bonus to the primary stat.
You then get to pick 4 stats to increase.

No randomness, bonuses that make narrative sense, complete control of customization.


----------



## rooneg

Ruin Explorer said:


> The thing is, if they make any significant changes to the core class at all, it's likely to become incompatible with some subclasses, and once that happens, there's no point trying to make it compatible with others - it'd almost be worse to have, say, a 6E Fighter compatible with 50% of old subclasses than one cleanly compatible with 0%. And it's not breaking their word if 5E classes only work with 5E subclasses, so long as mechanically they fit into the 6E system generally.



I personally agree, because I think there are classes that really do need enough of an overhaul to make reusing old subclasses pointless (Fighter, Ranger, Warlock, etc), but I can definitely understand people who feel that "backwards compatible" means "I can use Gloomstalker with the PHB2024's version of the Ranger". I think this is actually one of the big questions WotC will be looking to answer, how far can they push this stuff while still leaving people with a revision that feels sufficiently backwards compatible to the majority of players. Anyway, we'll know a lot more once the first classes start to drop.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> Totally derailing the thread now.  The problem I have with your rant is the assumption that people can't do this unless they are stat majors (or otherwise are 'math people').  Which I think most people would agree with.
> 
> I disagree, because I think that distinction...between math people and non-math people...is the result of that assumption.  It's not circular: it starts with the mistaken assumption.  We think people need to memorize formulae and algorithms because they won't be able to actually understand the logic, so we teach them to memorize...and they never end up actually understanding.
> 
> I'll stop there, but I would encourage anybody/everybody to read Paul Lockhart:
> https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf




I mean, I've bitten my tongue recently about posts that said folks shouldn't be expected to add or subtract two digit numbers on the fly, so I kind of get it.

And I certainly strongly agree that most folks could successfully take the time to take a few semesters of stat and prob courses if they wanted to.

And I'm appalled by the glib way a lot of America excuses being bad at math in ways they don't excuse not being able to read.

But I also think we should all learn more history and science and econ and coding and...  And we don't have time to do it all.

We could all also all take some pharmacy and car repair courses and make our own medicine and fix our own cars.

And so I'm not sure why asking people to derive things on their own  in the middle of a thread is a reasonable ask just because it's something we can do quickly with little effort.

Also pretty sure my derail here wasn't all that  reasonable of a use of space in this thread either 

And I totally agree that teaching there is one way to do things right is awful too.


----------



## HammerMan

Parmandur said:


> Convention and store play isn't normative, only a fraction of players interact with that. Loose goosey mixing is the norm from what I can see.



I’m sorry but what makes store games not normal?


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> A jockey would have a strength of 10-12.




In 5e they can have any score the lineman can have.


----------



## HammerMan

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'm willing to bet that while technically possible, mixing and matching 1D&D and 5e character options is going to be more awkward than it's worth, so that by 2025 most tables will be using one or the other almost exclusively.



We will have to wait to see. But I get that feeling too


----------



## Bagpuss

Galandris said:


> 19. Critical hits are being nerfed, since you don't reroll and add all damage dice, but only the Weapon damage. No more sneak attacking rogues rolling buckets of d6s on a critical unless they word it carefully in the Rogue class description. It is also possible, now, to have a weapon damage that does... no damage dice. Net and blowguns, maybe? Were people using those routinely?




Yeah perhaps it was done to nerf attack roll spells doing critical hits, but it also nerfs Sneak Attack, Superiority Dice and Smite, so the martial classes get screwed over even more. Not a change I like.


----------



## halfling rogue

The cool thing about 5e D&D is it's modularity and flexibility. How I run D&D with my group is surely different than another group, but it's still recognizably D&D. I assume this is how it's been from the beginning of D&D in general, but they did emphasize it with 5e. (We're not the target audience for most products that hit the shelves. I don't buy any fluff books, or any 'player forward' books, or even monster books. I do buy adventures though. That is, if they are worth it. I want good adventure design that I can use and have fun with.)

But the ironic thing about flexibility and modularity is that it needs a core that doesn't break. So long as they build around that core and not re-invent it, I think it could work. Saying X, Y, and Z are 'options' works. But the trend I'm seeing is to tinker with the core. A flattening of the races/backgrounds/etc. I get that such things are optional, but it really feels like they just want to have everyone create a character just like someone chooses a 'skin' in Fortnite or something. Create whatever statblock you want and then skin it however you'd like. If that is the direction they're going to go (loose the attributes! no specific racial bonuses!) the core doesn't break at that point, but it does become mush. And you can set it up in such a way that it is compatible with the past version, but it will ghettoize the past versions playing only past versions, because the new stuff becomes more unwieldy, in ways that may be compatible, but creates an increasing amount of work (and wasted material) for people who are just going to strip that stuff out in their own games. At some point, for many, the cons of the material being produced will outweigh the pros.


----------



## Krachek

GMforPowergamers said:


> I bet that for most tables it will be 2014 phb or 2024phb... I do wonder though, will there be 2014+tasha +motm tables that just do 1/2 upgrade?



If they are committed to the coexistence of both phb, they will certainly allow to use both in AL and other official events. Will it be enough to encourage it too for private table? Quite less obvious. They will probably disallow to make character using both phb at the same time, avoiding a fiesta of shenanigans.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> At least they are claiming to do so. Time will tell if they pull it off.



So far, so good. They've already published OneD&D material for use with the 5E books without any issues.


----------



## Ancalagon

Parmandur said:


> They made it quite clear in the video and the document that half-eaces are gone.



So we no longer have races, we have _species_ .  This has all sorts of implications


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> i'm not sure you can say for sure one way or the other on either of these... and I will take my 'not normative' experence with 100's of players over your 'normative' with a few friends



Anecdote versus anecdote. Hundreds are no more representative of millions than a dozen. But you know who does have data on what people actually do...the designers making this material.


----------



## Parmandur

rooneg said:


> I hope that's the case (since I want some pretty significant changes to some classes), but I remain curious how much they'll let themselves be constrained by a desire to be backwards compatible with subclasses in old books. We'll know a lot more once the class playtest docs start dropping. Agreed though that I don't expect there to be some massive outcry, most people I've talked to are broadly positive what we've seen so far.



Welp...no book is entirely made up of Subclasses. So they could break all of the Subclasses and Xanathar's could still be technically used.

Alternatively and more likely...they could have a paragraph in a sidebar providing a "conversion" proces, as they do here describing how to mix 2014 Races with the new Backgrounds.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'm willing to bet that while technically possible, mixing and matching 1D&D and 5e character options is going to be more awkward than it's worth, so that by 2025 most tables will be using one or the other almost exclusively.



But we are already mixing and matching them today.


----------



## Parmandur

HammerMan said:


> I’m sorry but what makes store games not normal?



It's a very small percentage of people who play D&D, per WotC own report. Most people never play in stores.


----------



## The Hierophant

Nikosandros said:


> ... or the magical shields ruling. That was really weird, I wonder what was the reasoning behind it.




What ruling was that?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> I'm....not sure how to answer that.  Are you saying you _don't_ find Powerful Build to be less colorful/evocative/flavorful than +2 Str?
> 
> I keep hearing that without fixed racial ASIs the races are all identical.  But if that's true, then Elves and Halflings and Tabaxi are already "identical".  Do you find that to be true?



No, but I also don't think Powerful Build is a particularly flavorful ability.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Honestly, if they would just split heritage and culture all of this would be so much easier.  But I guess WotC thinks people can't handle one more decision point.


----------



## Nikosandros

The Hierophant said:


> What ruling was that?



That you can gain the magical bonus to AC from a shield by simply holding the shield, even if you don't don it. It's really weird. There was a very long thread here about two years ago.


----------



## CleverNickName

A retread of an older meme.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> The thing is, if they make any significant changes to the core class at all, it's likely to become incompatible with some subclasses, and once that happens, there's no point trying to make it compatible with others - it'd almost be worse to have, say, a 6E Fighter compatible with 50% of old subclasses than one cleanly compatible with 0%. And it's not breaking their word if 5E classes only work with 5E subclasses, so long as mechanically they fit into the 6E system generally.



Corporations do love their semantic arguments.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Parmandur said:


> But we are already mixing and matching them today.



I suspect we'll soon find that MoM is more "inspired" by 1D&D than actually part of the new edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Anecdote versus anecdote. Hundreds are no more representative of millions than a dozen. But you know who does have data on what people actually do...the designers making this material.



you mean the people asking for our feedback right now... those designers?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Krachek said:


> If they are committed to the coexistence of both phb, they will certainly allow to use both in AL and other official events. Will it be enough to encourage it too for private table? Quite less obvious. They will probably disallow to make character using both phb at the same time, avoiding a fiesta of shenanigans.



I really, really don't think they are committed to both phb.  I think they want to change the game, and are seeing how far they can take it.  If they don't expect most people to use the 2024 edition and DDB when the time comes I will be very surprised.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Krachek said:


> If they are committed to the coexistence of both phb, they will certainly allow to use both in AL and other official events.



I do wonder about this too... in 2024+ can I walk into those cons and play AL with the not updated not errata 2014phb


----------



## Maxperson

overgeeked said:


> I hope Fred is the one that sticks. "Hey, everyone, let's play Fred!"



"I don't wanna.  That game sounds kinda Weasley.  Let's play Harry instead!"


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> But I guess WotC thinks people can't handle one more decision point.




Why so caustic? Can’t people just have different preferences?  Believe me, I can handle complexity, but over the decades I’ve come to the conclusion that complexity, especially for the sake of realism, doesn’t enhance my RPG experience. 

Maybe it’s not that the masses of players can’t handle complexity, or want an MMO, or are “kids” with short attention spans. Maybe it’s just that the people who geek out over crunchy verisimilitude, who prefer gaming on that basis, are not in the majority anymore


----------



## Horwath

Umbran said:


> Exactly.  So, we can easily support the idea that _the population_ of dwarves or elves typically have some usual stats, without having _every single individual_ follow that pattern.



exactly.

I can support as an optional rule min and max of starting abilities if all want that option.

I.E: elves must have Min of 12 dex and 10 int and max of 14 con at character creation

dwarves might have min of 12 str and con and max of 14 in dex and cha.


but that is only an option, not a default rule.


----------



## MarkB

Horwath said:


> crit no longer doubles sneak attack?



No, nor paladins' Smites.

On the other hand, rolling a natural 20 does gain you Inspiration.


----------



## Plaguescarred

I have a feeling being Surprised will now makes you Incapacitated until the end of your first turn in combat and that you have Disadvantage to initiative to increase the chance of lower turn count.


----------



## Nikosandros

I have a personal observation about "kids and complexity". I don't know if it is universally applicable, but - personally - as a teenager, I loved complexity. I considered reading rules for wargames such as Advanced Squad Leader and Empires in Arms great fun. Nowadays... not so much.


----------



## MoonSong

Hi, I have a huge doubt. Can I get into the playtest without having a D&D Beyond Account? I don't have one, and I'm not sure I can justify spending money just to enter the playtest.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bagpuss said:


> Yeah perhaps it was done to nerf attack roll spells doing critical hits, but it also nerfs Sneak Attack, Superiority Dice and Smite, so the martial classes get screwed over even more. Not a change I like.



The thing is, the ability to crit with SA, Superiority Dice, and Smite made them harder to balance. Removing the 5% chance to randomly deal twice as much damage as expected opens up space to push those class’s base damage higher.


----------



## Horwath

MarkB said:


> No, nor paladins' Smites.
> 
> On the other hand, rolling a natural 20 does gain you Inspiration.



yaaaay....


----------



## MarkB

MoonSong said:


> Hi, I have a huge doubt. Can I get into the playtest without having a D&D Beyond Account? I don't have one, and I'm not sure I can justify spending money just to enter the playtest.



Signing up to D&D Beyond is free. It's only subscriptions and purchases that would cost you money.


----------



## Charlaquin

MoonSong said:


> Hi, I have a huge doubt. Can I get into the playtest without having a D&D Beyond Account? I don't have one, and I'm not sure I can justify spending money just to enter the playtest.



You don’t have to buy anything to make an account. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still not a fan of an account being required to access the material. But at least you don’t have to pay money for it.


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> Half everything!
> 
> View attachment 258263



Time to make a half-halfling, just because.


----------



## Charlaquin

Nikosandros said:


> I have a personal observation about "kids and complexity". I don't know if it is universally applicable, but - personally - as a teenager, I loved complexity. I considered reading rules for wargames such as Advanced Squad Leader and Empires in Arms great fun. Nowadays... not so much.



Yeah but you were a big nerd as a teenager (I assume. I don’t know you.)


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> Time to make a half-halfling, just because.



You mean, 1/4-ling or 3/4-ling?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> You mean, 1/4-ling or 3/4-ling?



Yes!  All of the above.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Why so caustic? Can’t people just have different preferences?  Believe me, I can handle complexity, but over the decades I’ve come to the conclusion that complexity, especially for the sake of realism, doesn’t enhance my RPG experience.
> 
> Maybe it’s not that the masses of players can’t handle complexity, or want an MMO, or are “kids” with short attention spans. Maybe it’s just that the people who geek out over crunchy verisimilitude, who prefer gaming on that basis, are not in the majority anymore



What I'm saying is that I have more faith in the ability of gamers to handle a little complexity than WotC does.


----------



## MarkB

Cadence said:


> You mean, 1/4-ling or 3/4-ling?






Maxperson said:


> Yes!  All of the above.



How many iterations do you have to go through before you just get a full-on Ling?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Nikosandros said:


> I have a personal observation about "kids and complexity". I don't know if it is universally applicable, but - personally - as a teenager, I loved complexity. I considered reading rules for wargames such as Advanced Squad Leader and Empires in Arms great fun. Nowadays... not so much.



Same. 

I was a nerd, and didn’t sit at the cool kids table, so I had a lot of self-worth wrapped up in mastering, and gate-keeping, complexity. 

Not so much anymore.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> What I'm saying is that I have more faith in the ability of gamers to handle a little complexity than WotC does.



But you are assuming that’s their reason.


----------



## jmartkdr2

GMforPowergamers said:


> I do wonder about this too... in 2024+ can I walk into those cons and play AL with the not updated not errata 2014phb



In 2024 - probably yes. In 2025 - probably no. Okay they’re be a transition period but I suspect AL will want to switch to the new rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> The thing is, the ability to crit with SA, Superiority Dice, and Smite made them harder to balance. Removing the 5% chance to randomly deal twice as much damage as expected opens up space to push those class’s base damage higher.



I know, I know….and I love rolling all those dice when it happens. 

Also, while paladins were OP, this is a blow to rogues.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> In 5e they can have any score the lineman can have.



But they _wouldn't_.


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> How many iterations do you have to go through before you just get a full-on Ling?



There hasn't been one of those for 10,000 years.  Not since the great divine accident that divided the 8 foot tall Lings.  Their gods, embarrassed by their mistake, granted the race luck to ensure it wouldn't happen again.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Ardling.
Tiefling.
So are Halflings half angelic/demonic?


----------



## Maxperson

Sir Brennen said:


> Ardling.
> Tiefling.
> So are Halflings half angelic/demonic?



Both.  Where do you think those guys who sit on your shoulders come from?


----------



## Umbran

MoonSong said:


> Hi, I have a huge doubt. Can I get into the playtest without having a D&D Beyond Account? I don't have one, and I'm not sure I can justify spending money just to enter the playtest.




You can have an account for free.


----------



## Weiley31

Also...as somebody on Twitter noticed: The Gladiator Background speaks Orc _and_ has the _Savage Attacker_ feat.

But wait.....doesn't that mean....I thought Wizards of the Coast was trying to change that image of the Orc??? Hmmm...

WoTC:


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> But you are assuming that’s their reason.



Yes I am.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> But they _wouldn't_.




Why can't my 4'10" 108lb horse racer be just as strong as your 6'8" 305lb offensive lineman?  Fantasy heroes just want to hero!  And think of how awesome my Jockey will be really yanking you down with that Lasso and then throwing you over their shoulder and marching you to jail.


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> Why can't my 4'10" 108lb horse racer be just as strong as your 6'8" 305lb offensive lineman?  Fantasy heroes just want to hero!  And think of how awesome my Jockey will be really yanking you down with that Lasso and then throwing you over their shoulder and marching you to jail.



Because jockey is a dexterity class.


----------



## Weiley31

Ah yes, the successor to the Goliath/Halfling STR 20 debate: The Jockey and Lineman.

Long may this battle reign!


----------



## MoonSong

Charlaquin said:


> You don’t have to buy anything to make an account. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still not a fan of an account being required to access the material. But at least you don’t have to pay money for it.



I wish it didn't have to be either Google or Apple. But well, it could be worse.


----------



## Scribe

Ixal said:


> And would still end up more graceful than the average human farmer because Elf. Thats the point. That being an elf matters even when you do not max out Dex instead of all races being identical until you select a background or decide where the floating ASI is added to.



I'm afraid this battle is long over.


Bagpuss said:


> Perhaps because it is was a stupid idea then and is still a stupid idea now. Although I do actually like bonuses are linked to background, I still think it was daft to divorce them completely from race.



A hybrid system is very possible, works well, but people will continue to decry it.


----------



## Nikosandros

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah but you were a big nerd as a teenager (I assume. I don’t know you.)



Obviously. But my point was also that I believe that kids in general have greater mental flexibility and stamina and thus, _if something interests them_, they can probably happily deal with more complexity...


----------



## Nikosandros

Charlaquin said:


> The thing is, the ability to crit with SA, Superiority Dice, and Smite made them harder to balance. Removing the 5% chance to randomly deal twice as much damage as expected opens up space to push those class’s base damage higher.



That's a great point. That's why I don't feel comfortable commenting on the changes to crits, until I see how they changed features such as sneak attack. They might be much more balanced now.


----------



## Mezuka

Seems like feats will no longer be 'optional' since they are included in backgrounds. How do you feel about that? We never used them. I guess the surveys showed a vast majority of players use them.


----------



## Krachek

Micah Sweet said:


> I really, really don't think they are committed to both phb.  I think they want to change the game, and are seeing how far they can take it.  If they don't expect most people to use the 2024 edition and DDB when the time comes I will be very surprised.



Indeed, the fully compatible is marketing tool, they hope people will eventually buy the new books.


----------



## Nikosandros

Mezuka said:


> Seems like feats will no longer be 'optional' since they are included in backgrounds. How do you feel about that? We never used them. I guess the surveys showed a vast majority of players use them.



I've always used them, so I'm OK with the change. Crawford noted that since feats will be "gated" by level, players will have to consult shorter lists when making decisions.


----------



## Sir Brennen

MoonSong said:


> I wish it didn't have to be either Google or Apple. But well, it could be worse.



It's also Twitch (so basically, Amazon)


----------



## Nikosandros

Sir Brennen said:


> It's also Twitch (so basically, Amazon)



Since you can have an account on wizards.com, they should just unify the logins. I realize that this might not be trivial, but I hope they're working on it.


----------



## Paul3

Nikosandros said:


> Obviously. But my point was also that I believe that kids in general have greater mental flexibility and stamina and thus, _if something interests them_, they can probably happily deal with more complexity...




If you believe that kids have more stamina today, I would suggest you haven't been around kids. We have bred a generation based on immediate gratification and short attention spans that result in them ping-ponging from one medium to another. 

One of the best things about DnD and the board game hobby in general (that I feel we are slowly losing) is that in many games, it forced them to put down their tech and engage with each other for long stretches of time. Anyone that has played with kids can tell you that it was a rare opportunity for them to actually build stamina/longer attention spans. However, by and large, many are not coming to the table with this already built in. It just isn't how they have been raised.


----------



## Nikosandros

Paul3 said:


> If you believe that kids have more stamina today, I would suggest you haven't been around kids. We have bred a generation based on immediate gratification and short attention spans that result in them ping-ponging from one medium to another.



I am a teacher, so I'm around kids all the time. For the past two years, I've been on leave, so - maybe - everything has changed in the meantime, but I somehow doubt it.


----------



## Undrave

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I'm sure like any other UA they are starting off a little too extreme and the final version will be backed off into the realm of reasonableness.



Realms of boring you mean


----------



## Vaalingrade

Undrave said:


> Realms of boring you mean



Yeah, much like Next, I expect all the promise and good design to be sucked right out of this by the playtest.


----------



## Paul3

Nikosandros said:


> I am a teacher, so I'm around kids all the time. For the past two years, I've been on leave, so - maybe - everything has changed in the meantime, but I somehow doubt it.




Been teaching, coaching, parent for over 30 years, and I will stand by my statement.  Go to a high school football game and see how many are on their phones (hint...basically all of them).


----------



## Vaalingrade

Paul3 said:


> If you believe that kids have more stamina today, I would suggest you haven't been around kids. We have bred a generation based on immediate gratification and short attention spans that result in them ping-ponging from one medium to another.



We have bred at least three generations who have just become sick and tired to the same (ironically) lazy slander and libel leveled at them as have been leveled at every generation of young people for hundreds of years and aren't taking it anymore.


----------



## dave2008

Bill Zebub said:


> I know, I know….and I love rolling all those dice when it happens.
> 
> Also, while paladins were OP, this is a blow to rogues.



Maybe we will see change to the rogue to compensate in a future playtest


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> Because jockey is a dexterity class.



Your jockey might be!   Just wait until your horse collapses before the line and you need to get it across on your shoulders.  Or try to hold on to that Lasso and pull the cattle down using your "Dexterity".


----------



## Shardstone

Paul3 said:


> If you believe that kids have more stamina today, I would suggest you haven't been around kids. We have bred a generation based on immediate gratification and short attention spans that result in them ping-ponging from one medium to another.
> 
> One of the best things about DnD and the board game hobby in general (that I feel we are slowly losing) is that in many games, it forced them to put down their tech and engage with each other for long stretches of time. Anyone that has played with kids can tell you that it was a rare opportunity for them to actually build stamina/longer attention spans. However, by and large, many are not coming to the table with this already built in. It just isn't how they have been raised.



Like Gen X and Boomers aren't the same way. Get real.


----------



## Cadence

Paul3 said:


> Been teaching, coaching, parent for over 30 years, and I will stand by my statement.  Go to a high school football game and see how many are on their phones (hint...basically all of them).



So they like interesting things that don't cause brain damage?  ;-)


----------



## Paul3

Vaalingrade said:


> We have bred at least three generations who have just become sick and tired to the same (ironically) lazy slander and libel leveled at them as have been leveled at every generation of young people for hundreds of years and aren't taking it anymore.




Oh, there are many things that young folk are better at because of this "ping-ponging". They are more adaptable, able to better adjust to transitions, can multi-task, are better at finding work-arounds, can quickly adjust to new tech, etc. It isn't a slam on young people at all in the big picture. Stamina just isn't one of those attributes.


----------



## Shardstone

Paul3 said:


> Oh, there are many things that young folk are better at because of this "ping-ponging". They are more adaptable, able to better adjust to transitions, can multi-task, are better at finding work-arounds, can quickly adjust to new tech, etc. It isn't a slam on young people at all in the big picture. Stamina just isn't one of those attributes.



This is how I know you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Paul3

Cadence said:


> So they like interesting things that don't cause brain damage?  ;-)




Then why go?


----------



## Cadence

Paul3 said:


> Then why go?



I will confess I completely don't understand the desire to sit next to the person you're texting, but that would put a lot of such folks nearby.

Could also be lack of other social activities on Friday nights?  (Scouts usually don't meet on Fridays, other sports don't program against football, church things are usually Wednesday, have clubs for teens to dance at been a thing since the 90s?, the game stores are filled with scary old people...)

Are the parties either at a cheerleader or players house afterwards?


----------



## Justice and Rule

Micah Sweet said:


> I advocate for their removal.  I think people should just get feats at those levels.





Remathilis said:


> Then what about feats that grant +1 ASI?
> 
> If ability scores are a function of genetics, then there should be no way to change them barring powerful magics. Not by feats, levels or class.




_*This*_. Creating the choice between ASIs and Feats was meant as something to keep it so you didn't need to use Feats in your game. It was a bad split and shouldn't have been done.



Medic said:


> A dwarf scholar-wizard starts the game with 15 Intelligence and proficiency in the Arcana skill, granting them a +4 bonus to Arcana checks, a +4 bonus to spell attack rolls, and a spell save DC of 12. This is measurably better than the human baseline of +0 to Arcana checks and no spellcasting, making this dwarf a distinguished individual that is smarter and more learned than most people, even those of a species with a +2 to Intelligence.
> 
> A gnome scholar-wizard starts the game with 17 Intelligence and proficiency in the Arcana skill, granting them a +5 bonus to Arcana checks, a +5 bonus to spell attack rolls, and a spell save DC of 13. They are only marginally better than their dwarf counterpart, the difference is functionally imperceptible in play. You could always create a dwarf that is book smart and sickly with the core rules without incurring any significant penalty.




I don't fully agree, but this basically makes my point for me: if the numbers matter that little, then why are we using the numbers to differentiate? Why not let us have the ability to make them better match our concepts (where they will have the most notable effect) and save differences in race to interesting abilities that other races won't have access to?



Medic said:


> We agree that ASIs do not distinguish races in any meaningful way. They are essentially fluff, non-essential unless your objective is to increase they key ability score of your class.




I disagree with this a great deal. ASIs matter, especially in a game where there are very limited options for improvement. Plus, saying that they're just "fluff" and non-essentially is really a great argument as to why we don't need to attach them to race anymore. The only real effect they have is largely pushing people who want to play certain classes towards certain races so that they can get the most out of them. Why not detach them, put them into characterful backgrounds (or even custom ones) while making race something that has a bunch of interesting consequences that supplements your class choice rather than deciding it?



Medic said:


> Having said that, I would still not create a hypothetical elf barbarian with the template presented in this playtest material - *their traits do not synergize with the barbarian class as well as those of other races*.




I disagree. Those powers have a ton of utility and could be useful both in and out of combat. Each of those spells are useful to have on their own detached from class. Compare this to getting stat boosts that run counter to my class: putting them into dump stats will likely have little effect on my character.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Paul3 said:


> Oh, there are many things that young folk are better at because of this "ping-ponging". They are more adaptable, able to better adjust to transitions, can multi-task, are better at finding work-arounds, can quickly adjust to new tech, etc. It isn't a slam on young people at all in the big picture. Stamina just isn't one of those attributes.



It's still a slam on young people in general for no real reason and I wish you'd stop doubling down on it.


----------



## Paul3

Cadence said:


> I will confess I completely don't understand the desire to sit next to the person you're texting, but that would put a lot of such folks nearby.
> 
> Could also be lack of other social activities on Friday nights?  (Scouts usually don't meet on Fridays, other sports don't program against football, church things are usually Wednesday, have clubs for teens to dance at been a thing since the 90s?, the game stores are filled with scary old people...)




FWIW, attendance at high school sporting events has declined significantly over the last 20+ years, primarily because they DO have many other options. They no longer need to go to the football game to socialize even though they don't care about football.  Anyway, this is derailing the thread so I am going to bow out on this topic, but I stand by my position that in-person non tech-based DnD gives kids today a unique experience that benefits them and gradually losing that experience is something that makes me sad.


----------



## Cadence

Vaalingrade said:


> It's still a slam on young people in general for no real reason and I wish you'd stop doubling down on it.












						Busting the attention span myth
					

Is there any evidence that the internet and smartphones have shrunk our attention spans?



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Cadence

Paul3 said:


> but I stand by my position that in-person non tech-based DnD gives kids today a unique experience that benefits them and gradually losing that experience is something that makes me sad.




I will definitely agree with that.  I hope my son can play in person with friends for the first time this Fall.  ---    Having friends scattered over a wide area, instead of just the neighborhood, will make that a challenge though, so we'll see if we can pull off having everyone get together in person.


----------



## OB1

dave2008 said:


> Maybe we will see change to the rogue to compensate in a future playtest



I think we will see exactly that, but it does bring up an interesting quandary in terms of compatibility.  If the new core Rogues get an additional feature to compensate for the loss of doubling sneak attack dice, what happens to a 2014 Rogue playing under the 2024 core?  Here are the choices as I see them

Drop the new weapon only crit rule
Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power to non-weapon damage with no exceptions
Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power but allow new subclasses to provide an exception
Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a genera reduction in power, but allow core class features to provide an exception and provide a conversion doc to allow 2014 core classes to take advantage of that exception


----------



## Bill Zebub

As a Boomer, the last couple pages of this thread make me understand why “Ok, Boomer” is a thing. 

Stereotypes are…interesting.


----------



## Knight_Marshal

I disagree with their handling of mixed race characters. We do not need them to officially tell us we can take a Drow and say its half Drow and half Dwarf. We can do that already.

What we need is rules to mix and match racial features so that mechanically our character will be half Drow and Dwarf.


----------



## Haplo781

Knight_Marshal said:


> I disagree with their handling of mixed race characters. We do not need them to officially tell us we can take a Drow and say its half Drow and half Dwarf. We can do that already.
> 
> What we need is rules to mix and match racial features so that mechanically our character will be half Drow and Dwarf.



I mean some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that what it says on the sheet isn't 100% identical with the narrative.


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> I mean some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that what it says on the sheet isn't 100% identical with the narrative.




It feels like when it's something easy to do that getting more than 50% would be nice.


----------



## Medic

Justice and Rule said:


> I don't fully agree, but this basically makes my point for me: if the numbers matter that little, then why are we using the numbers to differentiate? Why not let us have the ability to make them better match our concepts (where they will have the most notable effect) and save differences in race to interesting abilities that other races won't have access to?
> 
> I disagree with this a great deal. ASIs matter, especially in a game where there are very limited options for improvement. Plus, saying that they're just "fluff" and non-essentially is really a great argument as to why we don't need to attach them to race anymore. The only real effect they have is largely pushing people who want to play certain classes towards certain races so that they can get the most out of them. Why not detach them, put them into characterful backgrounds (or even custom ones) while making race something that has a bunch of interesting consequences that supplements your class choice rather than deciding it?



You are aware that I have been explicitly in favor of decoupling ability improvements from race this entire time, yes?



Justice and Rule said:


> I disagree. Those powers have a ton of utility and could be useful both in and out of combat. Each of those spells are useful to have on their own detached from class. Compare this to getting stat boosts that run counter to my class: putting them into dump stats will likely have little effect on my character.



We're going to have to disagree on this. Learning spells that I can cast once a day (or more often with spell slots), more than a few of which are either situational or keyed to mental ability scores that I likely will not be investing in, is less appealing to my Barbarian than the orc's improved survivability and trait that allows them to get into melee faster.


----------



## TwoSix

Haplo781 said:


> I mean some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that what it says on the sheet isn't 100% identical with the narrative.



I certainly agree that any support the books give to reskinning is great.  I can understand why WotC is reticent to allow for specific rules that allow swaps of racial abilities; essentially, that forces them to balance each racial trait individually (or create a race feature template) rather than balance the race as the gestalt of all its features.  At that point, they could simply merge race and background together into a single pool of features.

Not saying that isn't a perfectly viable path to pursue, but that might be a bridge too far in a "backwards compatible" revision.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Haplo781 said:


> I mean some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that what it says on the sheet isn't 100% identical with the narrative.



I pretty much dismiss any argument that fits the pattern “people other than me can’t handle X”.


----------



## dave2008

OB1 said:


> I think we will see exactly that, but it does bring up an interesting quandary in terms of compatibility.  If the new core Rogues get an additional feature to compensate for the loss of doubling sneak attack dice, what happens to a 2014 Rogue playing under the 2024 core?  Here are the choices as I see them
> 
> Drop the new weapon only crit rule
> Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power to non-weapon damage with no exceptions
> Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power but allow new subclasses to provide an exception
> Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a genera reduction in power, but allow core class features to provide an exception and provide a conversion doc to allow 2014 core classes to take advantage of that exception



Or 
5. Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power to non-weapon damage with no exceptions and don't care about how or why someone would use a 2014 rogue in a 2024 game.

I personally think it is such a small issue that it will be ignored.


----------



## TwoSix

Bill Zebub said:


> I pretty much dismiss any argument that fits the pattern “people other than me can’t handle X”.



I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic.  The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic.  The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.



I would agree with that.  Reskinning feels cheap and lazy to me.  I'm sure other people like it though, and good for them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

dave2008 said:


> Or
> 5. Keep the new weapon only crit rule as a general reduction in power to non-weapon damage with no exceptions and don't care about how or why someone would use a 2014 rogue in a 2024 game.
> 
> I personally think it is such a small issue that it will be ignored.



I like rolling all those dice, but it might math out: instead of getting extra sneak attack damage on a 20, you bank it for when you wouldn’t otherwise get sneak attack. And although you might lose it by critting again before you need it, how many times have you wasted it under the old rules with massive overkill?


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> I would agree with that.  Reskinning feels cheap and lazy to me.  I'm sure other people like it though, and good for them.



I try to present other people's arguments fairly when I can, even when I don't agree with them.


----------



## Ancalagon

doctorbadwolf said:


> The changes to the general rules are what worry me, not the changes to races.
> 
> You can literally use a PHB 2014 Wood Elf with a playtest background, no conversion needed. So far, so good. But while I agree with most of the general rules changes, the document in total and the video all taken together make me think they are willing to go far enough that you _wont_ be able to make a character using pre and post 2024 books without conversion.
> 
> Yep. Exactly. Hopefully they get enough such feedback to change course a little.



This has happened a few times in the past - 1e to 2e, 3.0 to 3.5.  They seem to be trying to thread the path where the rules are similar enough that it is backwards compatible... soooort of, but different enough that people want to buy new books.  

I wonder what's going to happen to the old 5e digital books - will they just go poof?


----------



## Cadence

Is the biggest benefit of NPCs in the monster books not being stat-ed up like PCs and using spell-like effects instead of spells... that most of them should work the same after the PHB changes?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I would agree with that.  Reskinning feels cheap and lazy to me.  I'm sure other people like it though, and good for them.




I don’t agree with your cynicism, but I don’t personally enjoy reskinning. 

That makes TWO things we agree on. 







Did somebody hear thunder?


----------



## Aldarc

TwoSix said:


> I try to present other people's arguments fairly when I can, even when I don't agree with them.



And that is why you're weak and will never win.


----------



## MarkB

Bill Zebub said:


> I like rolling all those dice, but it might math out: instead of getting extra sneak attack damage on a 20, you bank it for when you wouldn’t otherwise get sneak attack. And although you might lose it by critting again before you need it, how many times have you wasted it under the old rules with massive overkill?



Yeah, I think gaining easier Inspiration so that you can sneak attack more reliably will likely be reasonable compensation for not getting to double SA damage on a crit.


----------



## Ancalagon

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not saying I don’t want Common sign language to exist (which would allow deaf and hard of hearing people from across cultures to communicate). I just want other sign languages to exist so that deaf and hard of hearing people can communicate with each other within their culture without being understood by others. That’s the main use for languages in D&D anyway, right? Everyone speaks Common, so you don’t need other languages to be understood. You need them so you can speak to your in-group _without_ being understood by folks outside of it.



As a minority language-speaking person ... wow.  Just wow.  I know you mean well, but that is incredibly reductive and dismissive.  

Ma langue, ma culture existe pour que les anglais nous comprennent pas?  Tabarnak....


----------



## OB1

Ancalagon said:


> I wonder what's going to happen to the old 5e digital books - will they just go poof?



I imagine that it will be the same as with Volos and Tome of Foes, if you've already purchased, you can access it as 'legacy' tagged content.  They could potentially give you the option at character creation to use either rule set (provided you own both).


----------



## Justice and Rule

Medic said:


> You are aware that I have been explicitly in favor of decoupling ability improvements from race this entire time, yes?




Ah, my apologies. It didn't come off as such, I suppose.



Medic said:


> We're going to have to disagree on this. Learning spells that I can cast once a day (or more often with spell slots), more than a few of which are either situational or keyed to mental ability scores that I likely will not be investing in, is less appealing to my Barbarian than the orc's improved survivability and trait that allows them to get into melee faster.




Only one of them keys off a mental stat (which you get to choose), and while they are situational they are undoubtably useful. Your Orc being more survivable is certainly individually useful, but my Wood Elf Barbarian giving a massive bonus to Stealth to the party with _Pass Without Trace_ naturally instead of having to force a caster to have it is also useful, while also being able to go insanely fast around the field with faster speed plus _Longstrider_. A Drow Barbarian having better Darkvision and being able to cast Darkness is helpful to the party in a pinch, and if you have any sort of mental stat _Faerie Fire _is definitely helpful. Having the ability to choose from multiple cantrips (of which there are plenty of ones that don't require stats) is useful, and having a Barbarian who can Misty Step is definitely cool, especially when they are in combat and a friend needs immediate help.

All those abilities are less direct than the Orc's, but they still carry a bunch of utility and usefulness. That's what makes it an interesting choice: having a Barbarian with interesting utility powers that can help the party versus one that synergizes with survivability in combat.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I suspect we'll soon find that MoM is more "inspired" by 1D&D than actually part of the new edition.



We already have both Monsters of the Multiverse and the new PHB Race rules. They are the same.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Ancalagon said:


> Tabarnak....




Don't swear.


----------



## Ancalagon

Justice and Rule said:


> Don't swear.



don't tone police, _especially_ in such circumstances


----------



## OB1

MarkB said:


> Yeah, I think gaining easier Inspiration so that you can sneak attack more reliably will likely be reasonable compensation for not getting to double SA damage on a crit.



That's an interesting way to think about it.  So Nat20 Inspiration is the new Crit rule (and also expanded to all d20 tests), and weapon damage crits are a power bump to weapon users.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> Is the biggest benefit of NPCs in the monster books not being stat-ed up like PCs and using spell-like effects instead of spells... that most of them should work the same after the PHB changes?



If you consider that a benefit.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Ancalagon said:


> don't tone police, _especially_ in such circumstances




The ghost of _ma mère_ would not appreciate it. Also apparently the joke didn't carry.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Parmandur said:


> We already have both Monsters of the Multiverse and the new PHB Race rules. They are the same.



No they're not.


----------



## Parmandur

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> No they're not.



Yes, yes they are. The formatting and rules are entirely transparent. Crawford admitted that isbehat theybhad done, and you can read the book and thebplaytest packet.


----------



## Micah Sweet

OB1 said:


> That's an interesting way to think about it.  So Nat20 Inspiration is the new Crit rule (and also expanded to all d20 tests), and weapon damage crits are a power bump to weapon users.



So they are really forcing inspiration at this point.  I guess they didn't like how little folks used it before.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> That's the paradox in the arguments for why fixed racial ASIs are so necessary.  It amounts to "Goliaths are way stronger than Halflings, and that should be represented by a +1 on d20."  You'd have to give them +10 strength for it to even begin to address the realism argument.
> 
> A colorful racial ability goes so much farther in portraying the strength of a Goliath than does an ASI.



What I've been saying since I got in the hobby. 

"The description only makes sense if I got a +8"
"That's OP!"


----------



## Ancalagon

ehren37 said:


> Fighters should be incorporating magic into their training and techniques. Chugging dragon blood, using elemental oils to strengthen their skin. Them not using any magic, which is the fundamental tech of D&D world, is like a modern soldier not using tech.



One could argue that a number of fighters do this already - the rune knight, the eldritch knight, the psi warrior, the arcane archer...


----------



## MarkB

Micah Sweet said:


> So they are really forcing inspiration at this point.  I guess they didn't like how little folks used it before.



It works for me. I was never against using inspiration before, but as a DM I'd just never really think to hand it out, and my players never asked for it.


----------



## Tutara

Paul3 said:


> Stamina just isn't one of those attributes.



Politely, the current generation of young people has endured the most significant disruption to education since the Second World War. If that does not show stamina, I’m not sure what does. I grow more impressed with the work ethic of the children in my classroom with every decade, not less.


----------



## Ancalagon

jmartkdr2 said:


> You'd think so, but the printed EK doesn't learn any spells that enhance attacks - just defenses and some spells that will always be worse attack options than using a weapon.



booming blade?  Enlarge?


----------



## Micah Sweet

MarkB said:


> It works for me. I was never against using inspiration before, but as a DM I'd just never really think to hand it out, and my players never asked for it.



I'm fine with inspiration, but it just didn't take hold of the audience.  The fact that they're forcing it to be more important tells me they do have their own design agenda, at least in part.  I respect them standing up for something they believe in at least.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Ancalagon said:


> booming blade?  Enlarge?



Cantrips, yes.

Enlarge has to compete for the precious not-abjuration slot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> I believe Tiefling is derived from the German _Teufel_, which comes from the same root as the English Devil, along with the suffix -ling meaning lineage. I would guess Ardling has a similar linguistic explanation. Probably from the Gaelic árd, meaning “high” (but more in the sense of being important rather than physical elevation).



I saw some speculation that the "Ard" from "Ardling" comes from "Ardor", due to its connection to the Seraphim.


----------



## Mistwell

FitzTheRuke said:


> Anyone point out yet that Surprise just gives the surprised disadvantage on Init?



It's unclear to me that's the change. That's an effect of being Incapacitated, but it's not the Surprised explicitly. If you are incapacitated by default by Surprise, then yes you have disadvantage on initiative in addition to being unable to take actions, concentrate, or speak.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> I know, I know….and I love rolling all those dice when it happens.



Understandable. Which is why I doubt this change will survive the survey.


Bill Zebub said:


> Also, while paladins were OP, this is a blow to rogues.



True, but I’m hoping it means rogues will get a big buff to compensate… If this change sticks, which again, I doubt it will.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ancalagon said:


> As a minority language-speaking person ... wow.  Just wow.  I know you mean well, but that is incredibly reductive and dismissive.
> 
> Ma langue, ma culture existe pour que les anglais nous comprennent pas?  Tabarnak....



I’m not saying that’s what languages are for in real life. I’m saying that’s the main gameplay utility of languages in D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> We already have both Monsters of the Multiverse and the new PHB Race rules. They are the same.



Mostly, except for ASIs coming from race in MMotM and from background in 1D&D.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Mistwell said:


> It's unclear to me that's the change. That's an effect of being Incapacitated, but it's not the Surprised explicitly. If you are incapacitated by default by Surprise, then yes you have disadvantage on initiative in addition to being unable to take actions, concentrate, or speak.




It's hard to say for sure. I don't think you'd be automatically Incapacitated by being Surprised. I think it's the other way around - you are automatically Surprised by being Incapacitated. But it's definitely unclear. Other than that if you are Incapacitated when rolling Initiative, you have Disadvantage because of a line they chose to label "Surprised".


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I certainly agree that any support the books give to reskinning is great.  I can understand why WotC is reticent to allow for specific rules that allow swaps of racial abilities; essentially, that forces them to balance each racial trait individually (or create a race feature template) rather than balance the race as the gestalt of all its features.  At that point, they could simply merge race and background together into a single pool of features.
> 
> Not saying that isn't a perfectly viable path to pursue, but that might be a bridge too far in a "backwards compatible" revision.



I think that they already have each trait balanced individually.  They almost surely have a formula for racial traits that lets them easily create new races. Whether they want to reveal it or not is the question.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> I think that they already have each trait balanced individually.  They almost surely have a formula for racial traits that lets them easily create new races. Whether they want to reveal it or not is the question.



I'd be very hesitant to say that a feature like gnomish cunning compared to dwarven stonecunning is an even swap.

Or to look ahead a little bit, what about even more defining traits like a warforged's armor plating or a changeling's alter shape?  I worry trying to make racial traits easily swappable might prevent them from making more defining and interesting racial traits.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I saw some speculation that the "Ard" from "Ardling" comes from "Ardor", due to its connection to the Seraphim.



Then I hereby start a petition to rename Tieflings, Mordlings and connect them to Mordor.


----------



## Haplo781

Maxperson said:


> Then I hereby start a petition to rename Tieflings, Mordlings and connect them to Mordor.



Hodlings. Descendants of Hodor


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Mostly, except for ASIs coming from race in MMotM and from background in 1D&D.



Fair, though I consider that not a terribly significant difference.  Tasha's free floating ASI's and OneD&D free floating Background ASI are the same thing in my book, just arranged in a different order.


Maxperson said:


> I think that they already have each trait balanced individually.  They almost surely have a formula for racial traits that lets them easily create new races. Whether they want to reveal it or not is the question.



Tasha's custom lineage is standing right there (seriously, thst is what you can reduce all the Races they make to, plus ribbons)


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I'd be very hesitant to say that a feature like gnomish cunning compared to dwarven stonecunning is an even swap.
> 
> Or to look ahead a little bit, what about even more defining traits like a warforged's armor plating or a changeling's alter shape?  I worry trying to make racial traits easily swappable might prevent them from making more defining and interesting racial traits.



But perhaps Gnomish Cunning is more favorably compared to Dwarven Toughness or Dwarven Resilience.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Haplo781 said:


> Hodlings. Descendants of Hodor



Trying very hard (and failing) not to bring up the fact that hordelings were a type of NE fiend back in 2e...


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> But perhaps Gnomish Cunning is more favorably compared to Dwarven Toughness or Dwarven Resilience.



Yea, I mean they can definitely do some kind of keywording (major, minor, etc) on various racial abilities to allow for roughly even swaps.  It's not hard to come up with a design to allow for hybrid racial traits, I just don't think they feel it's a good idea.


----------



## Parmandur

For anyone curious, Karl David Brown  @Coronoides reverse engineered how WotC value traits in the game on various forums, and eventually put his work up on DMsGuild:









						The Tinker’s Toolkit Race Design - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild
					

The Tinker’s Toolkit Race Design - This is an analysis of 5th edition D&D’s underlying mathematics and system for referees to create new races an




					www.dmsguild.com


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Then I hereby start a petition to rename Tieflings, Mordlings and connect them to Mordor.


----------



## Remathilis

Haplo781 said:


> Hodlings. Descendants of Hodor



Only if Arcane Lock is an SLA for them.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> But perhaps Gnomish Cunning is more favorably compared to Dwarven Toughness or Dwarven Resilience.



I wonder if they could just tag them as major, minor, and fluff and only let swaps happen at the same level or lower.

Was it 2e that had a really complicated set up for custom classes?

(Ninja's by @TwoSix )


----------



## TwoSix

Cadence said:


> I wonder if they could just tag them as major, minor, and fluff and only let swaps happen at the same level or lower.
> 
> Was it 2e that had a really complicated set up for custom classes?



2e had Skills and Powers, which assigned point values to various racial traits and class abilities and gave each race and class a variable amount of points to select them from.


----------



## MarkB

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Trying very hard (and failing) not to bring up the fact that hordelings were a type of NE fiend back in 2e...



Trying (and failing) to find a good excuse to work in descendants of natives of the planet Fondor in Star Wars.


----------



## Faolyn

Paul3 said:


> If you believe that kids have more stamina today, I would suggest you haven't been around kids. We have bred a generation based on immediate gratification and short attention spans that result in them ping-ponging from one medium to another.
> 
> One of the best things about DnD and the board game hobby in general (that I feel we are slowly losing) is that in many games, it forced them to put down their tech and engage with each other for long stretches of time. Anyone that has played with kids can tell you that it was a rare opportunity for them to actually build stamina/longer attention spans. However, by and large, many are not coming to the table with this already built in. It just isn't how they have been raised.



Hah! Kids have always been like that. It just used to be acceptable for parents to smack their kids if their attention wandered.


----------



## Cadence

Faolyn said:


> Hah! Kids have always been like that. It just used to be acceptable for parents to smack their kids if their attention wandered.




A long car ride many decades ago, before DVD players or cell phones or... well, lot's of things.

My sister: "DAD!  He's looking out my window!"

My dad: "Don't make me stop this car!"


----------



## Haplo781

MarkB said:


> Trying (and failing) to find a good excuse to work in descendants of natives of the planet Fondor in Star Wars.



Endlings


----------



## Vaalingrade

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I saw some speculation that the "Ard" from "Ardling" comes from "Ardor", due to its connection to the Seraphim.



I just assumed it was to connect them to the Celestial Furries, the Gu*ard*inals.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Mostly, except for ASIs coming from race in MMotM and from background in 1D&D.



I mean, do they? Maybe in the most technical of ways, but race doesn't influence ASI anymore (right?) so while it may happen at that step, it's not tied to race as it should be.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> I mean, do they? Maybe in the most technical of ways, but race doesn't influence ASI anymore (right?) so while it may happen at that step, it's not tied to race as it should be.



I’m not 100% sure if I’m parsing this correctly, but what I think you’re saying is a fair point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> It sounds like they're specifically deprecating the old backgrounds. Otherwise, the aforementioned disclaimer (about how you can't get both racial ability bonuses _and_ background ability bonuses) makes no sense.



this doesn’t follow. The sidebar clarifies that you have to choose which source to take your ASI from if playing a new origin writeup. That’s it. You can literally play a PHB Hill Dwarf with new style custom background, in a game wherein Tasha’s options are live, no adjustments needed. The PC playing the older race just has to choose whether to keep their OG ASIs, or choose them freely instead.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

HammerMan said:


> I think they mean the DM side can still use adventures but players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB.



They definitely don’t mean that. They explicitly say you can use supplements from throughout 5e with the new options.


----------



## Cadence

RE: @HammerMan 's  "players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB."



doctorbadwolf said:


> They definitely don’t mean that. They explicitly say you can use supplements from throughout 5e with the new options.




But WotC explicitly mentions modules and supplements, but not the core books, right?


----------



## SakanaSensei

Cadence said:


> RE: "players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB."
> 
> 
> 
> But WotC explicitly mentions modules and supplements, but not the core books.



 I know WotC isn’t going to consider this, but I am curious to see how certain things like subclasses get adjusted because there is a wide array of 3PP creatives like Mage Hand Press and MCDM making cool stuff for the game as it is. I’m more than willing to get under the hood and make adjustments, but I know a lot of people aren’t and said creatives might have a lot of work ahead of them either remaking old products or letting them be relegated to history.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> They definitely don’t mean that. They explicitly say you can use supplements from throughout 5e with the new options.



So no significant changes to classes then?  I know people have been chomping at the bit to adjust subclass features for all classes to level 1.  That would disrupt literally every 5e supplement.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> So no significant changes to classes then?  I know people have been chomping at the bit to adjust subclass features for all classes to level 1.  That would disrupt literally every 5e supplement.



Sidebar: "if you use a Subclass from an older book, put Level X Class features into Level Y."


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> So no significant changes to classes then?  I know people have been chomping at the bit to adjust subclass features for all classes to level 1.  That would disrupt literally every 5e supplement.



I’m not sure it would have to, actually. Take the rogue. They currently get their subclass at 3rd level. If 1D&D rogues get their subclass at 1st level, and thereafter gain subclass features at all the same levels 2014 rogues do, then structurally all the 2014 rogue subclasses would still essentially work for 1D&D rogues. They would only be missing a 1st level subclass feature. Just throw in a catch-all like “if your subclass doesn’t grant a feature at 1st level, you can take a 1st level Feat instead” or something. I dunno, just spitballing.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure it would have to, actually. Take the rogue. They currently get their subclass at 3rd level. If 1D&D rogues get their subclass at 1st level, and thereafter gain subclass features at all the same levels 2014 rogues do, then structurally all the 2014 rogue subclasses still would still essentially work for 1D&D rogues. They would only be missing a 1st level subclass feature. Just throw in a catch-all like “if your subclass doesn’t grant a feature at 1st level, you can take a 1st level Feat instead” or something. I dunno, just spitballing.



If they shift around the Level when stuff happens...they can explain jownto shift older options that fit the existing framework.

Some Classes (looking st you, Ranger) may need...more.


----------



## FireLance

Charlaquin said:


> True, but I’m hoping it means rogues will get a big buff to compensate… If this change sticks, which again, I doubt it will.



I was thinking something along the lines of: spend inspiration to deal proficiency bonus sneak attack dice damage. That way, when a rogue crits, they can choose to deal the extra damage immediately, or save it for later.


----------



## MarkB

FireLance said:


> I was thinking something along the lines of: spend inspiration to deal proficiency bonus sneak attack dice damage. That way, when a rogue crits, they can choose to deal the extra damage immediately, or save it for later.



Seems a little circular, since critting will give them that inspiration right back.


----------



## FireLance

Since ASIs and statistics have been brought up (though not in relation to each other), I should mention that for me, I prefer to have some ASIs come from race as I see the ability score distributions of each race as normal distributions with similar standard deviations (for simplicity) and different means. I suppose I think of it in this way as the original 3d6 ability score generation method also approximates a normal distribution, and since 3d6 is used for each race, the standard deviations are also the same. Racial ASIs then represent a shift in the mean, so the smartest gnome is always smarter than the smartest halfling.

(Aside: 4d6-1 was to me a way of randomly generating an exceptional individual within the overall population distribution, which remained unchanged.)

I guess the move to standard array or point buy as an ability score generation method breaks this causal link (even though the standard array and to a lesser extent point buy is based on the 4d6-1 distribution). The focus is now on the areas where the various distributions overlap (and they do overlap quite significantly) as the range of possibilities for PCs. If you are an Int 15 halfling, you are considered an exceptionally intelligent halfling, and if you get another +2 Int from a floating or background ASI, you are among the most brilliant of your race. If you are an Int 15 gnome, you are considered above average in intelligence for a gnome, and if you get another +2 Int, you are considered exceptional.

This makes ability score generation more outcome based than a process sim, and while it is not my preference, I accept that it is the official rule since it is what many players want and avoids sensitive race issues.


----------



## FireLance

MarkB said:


> Seems a little circular, since critting will give them that inspiration right back.



Assuming WotC keeps the rule that you can only have one point of inspiration at a time, the rogue may have already spent inspiration to increase damage before rolling a crit.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> RE: @HammerMan 's  "players have to upgrade as a whole table or stay back in old PHB."
> 
> 
> 
> But WotC explicitly mentions modules and supplements, but not the core books, right?



Right, the core books are being rewritten. But if you can use the supplement subclasses for the ranger with the 2024 PHB Ranger, you pretty much have to be able to use a 2024 Ranger subclass with the 2014 PHB Ranger. 


Micah Sweet said:


> So no significant changes to classes then?  I know people have been chomping at the bit to adjust subclass features for all classes to level 1.  That would disrupt literally every 5e supplement.



I really doubt that will happen. They may do something creative, though, like give lvl3 classes a supplemental feature at level 1 that has choices within it that help bridge the gap, or move the level 3 stuff down to level 1 and give a supplemental feature at level 3, I guess, but again I really think that the level structure will remain the same. 


Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure it would have to, actually. Take the rogue. They currently get their subclass at 3rd level. If 1D&D rogues get their subclass at 1st level, and thereafter gain subclass features at all the same levels 2014 rogues do, then structurally all the 2014 rogue subclasses would still essentially work for 1D&D rogues. They would only be missing a 1st level subclass feature. Just throw in a catch-all like “if your subclass doesn’t grant a feature at 1st level, you can take a 1st level Feat instead” or something. I dunno, just spitballing.



Yeah, I wonder if the “subclasses for multiple classes” idea was partly a test for something like this, though, to see if it confused or annoyed or put off folks


----------



## JEB

HammerMan said:


> Not that I am saying you are wrong but why?  Isn’t google accounts like the easiest thing to make.  Like make 1dndplaytestet@gmail.com or something.



I have a Google account, but that doesn't mean I want it, and all my potential marketing data, linked to D&D Beyond. Twitch, on the other hand, I never use...


----------



## Cadence

JEB said:


> I have a Google account, but that doesn't mean I want it, and all my potential marketing data, linked to D&D Beyond. Twitch, on the other hand, I never use...



One can have multiple Google email addresses still, right?


----------



## JEB

Cadence said:


> One can have multiple Google email addresses still, right?



Sure. I could have also made a duplicate Twitch account as well. But it would have been a lot nicer for D&D Beyond to just allow signups that aren't part of some other online ecosystem.


----------



## Cadence

JEB said:


> Sure. I could have also made a duplicate Twitch account as well. But it would have been a lot nicer for D&D Beyond to just allow signups that aren't part of some other online ecosystem.



Does doing it this way offload a lot of the worry about passwords and information being hacked and the like for them?


----------



## JEB

Cadence said:


> Does doing it this way offload a lot of the worry about passwords and information being hacked and the like for them?



No idea, you'd have to ask them. All I know is that it's a barrier to entry, if a surmountable one.


----------



## JEB

Krachek said:


> If they are committed to the coexistence of both phb, they will certainly allow to use both in AL and other official events.





Micah Sweet said:


> I really, really don't think they are committed to both phb.  I think they want to change the game, and are seeing how far they can take it.  If they don't expect most people to use the 2024 edition and DDB when the time comes I will be very surprised.





GMforPowergamers said:


> I do wonder about this too... in 2024+ can I walk into those cons and play AL with the not updated not errata 2014phb





jmartkdr2 said:


> In 2024 - probably yes. In 2025 - probably no. Okay they’re be a transition period but I suspect AL will want to switch to the new rules.



DDAL policy is to use the current rules, so I assume it'll be 2024 or nothing once the new core is out. Note it didn't take them very long to require folks to update characters to match MOTM (though they did recommend "patience").


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> this doesn’t follow. The sidebar clarifies that you have to choose which source to take your ASI from if playing a new origin writeup. That’s it. You can literally play a PHB Hill Dwarf with new style custom background, in a game wherein Tasha’s options are live, no adjustments needed. The PC playing the older race just has to choose whether to keep their OG ASIs, or choose them freely instead.



You are speaking of exactly what I was talking about though. A character with a _*new-style background*_ using the older options for races or the like. Playing someone with an old-style background is deprecated, doubly so if playing with a new-style race because then you wouldn't get any starting ability bonuses at all.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> So they are really forcing inspiration at this point.  I guess they didn't like how little folks used it before.





Micah Sweet said:


> I'm fine with inspiration, but it just didn't take hold of the audience.  The fact that they're forcing it to be more important tells me they do have their own design agenda, at least in part.  I respect them standing up for something they believe in at least.



So negative. An alternative view is that they realize how badly designed it was in o5e and decided to give more circumstances of it coming up and more utility to the feature to make the part of the game actually worthwhile. 

"Making a poorly designed mechanic better is an agenda to force the mechanic down my throat"   WotC really can't win these days, can they?


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> You are speaking of exactly what I was talking about though. A character with a _*new-style background*_ using the older options for races or the like. Playing someone with an old-style background is deprecated, doubly so if playing with a new-style race because then you wouldn't get any starting ability bonuses at all.



Somewhat: "take a free 1st Level Feat" is a mighty easy fix, and that's all that the old Backgrounds lack.


----------



## SakanaSensei

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So negative. An alternative view is that they realize how badly designed it was in o5e and decided to give more circumstances of it coming up and more utility to the feature to make the part of the game actually worthwhile.
> 
> "Making a poorly designed mechanic better is an agenda to force the mechanic down my throat"   WotC really can't win these days, can they?





AcererakTriple6 said:


> So negative. An alternative view is that they realize how badly designed it was in o5e and decided to give more circumstances of it coming up and more utility to the feature to make the part of the game actually worthwhile.
> 
> "Making a poorly designed mechanic better is an agenda to force the mechanic down my throat"   WotC really can't win these days, can they?



Please understand, when A5E adds mechanics that make inspiration reliably gained or allows for stat boosts to come from things other than race, it’s good. When WotC does it, it’s shoving mechanics down everyone’s throats.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Parmandur said:


> Somewhat: "take a free 1st Level Feat" is a mighty easy fix, and that's all that the old Backgrounds lack.



Sure, but (again...) that's a pretty clear break from "you can literally use totally, absolutely, 100% unaltered PHB options," which is what numerous people were specifically saying 5.5e would be. "D1D" (or whatever we choose to call it) is not "small tweaks and class errata." It is, in fact, changing some fundamental level stuff. You will be expected to either adapt old content to match the new rules, or expected to not use that old content in the first place. Which is the whole point I've been making, restated several times, and people keep pushing back on it while implicitly saying things that agree with it...


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> Sure, but (again...) that's a pretty clear break from "you can literally use totally, absolutely, 100% unaltered PHB options," which is what numerous people were specifically saying 5.5e would be. "D1D" (or whatever we choose to call it) is not "small tweaks and class errata." It is, in fact, changing some fundamental level stuff. You will be expected to either adapt old content to match the new rules, or expected to not use that old content in the first place. Which is the whole point I've been making, restated several times, and people keep pushing back on it while implicitly saying things that agree with it...



It's really not that big a deal?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Parmandur said:


> It's really not that big a deal?



Given the backlash already seen from some people on this forum, I beg to differ.

By which I mean, _I agree with you_, but there are several users on this forum who not only disagree, but disagree most vehemently. These changes are roughly in line with the amount of alteration I was expecting from "5.5e." They are not what a certain slice of the canvass expected, and that slice is more than a little unhappy. Some of them appear outright angry. I don't think those people are a majority by any means (and it seems many of them don't think they are either), but they exist, and the point still stands that "5.5e" is not the "tiny incremental updates and integrated errata" edition but rather a genuine "we want to modify the rules a fairly hefty amount" revision.


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> Given the backlash already seen from some people on this forum, I beg to differ.
> 
> By which I mean, _I agree with you_, but there are several users on this forum who not only disagree, but disagree most vehemently. These changes are roughly in line with the amount of alteration I was expecting from "5.5e." They are not what a certain slice of the canvass expected, and that slice is more than a little unhappy. Some of them appear outright angry. I don't think those people are a majority by any means (and it seems many of them don't think they are either), but they exist, and the point still stands that "5.5e" is not the "tiny incremental updates and integrated errata" edition but rather a genuine "we want to modify the rules a fairly hefty amount" revision.



Yes, it is a hefty revision, but mixing with base 5E material, like if someone wants to play a Half-Drow from SCAG say, is easy-peasy lemon squeeze. WotC really is bending over backwards to have their cake and ear it, too...and they may just pull it off


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> You are speaking of exactly what I was talking about though. A character with a _*new-style background*_ using the older options for races or the like. Playing someone with an old-style background is deprecated, doubly so if playing with a new-style race because then you wouldn't get any starting ability bonuses at all.



Yes, you would. You’d just choose them, using the rules for floating ASIs. 

I’m not sure about how you’re using deprecated, here, but I would guess you mean that it loses comparative value? In which case, you literally just give each PC with a pre-2024 background a level 1 feat.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes, you would. You’d just choose them, using the rules for floating ASIs.
> 
> I’m not sure about how you’re using deprecated, here, but I would guess you mean that it loses comparative value? In which case, you literally just give each PC with a pre-2024 background a level 1 feat.



I'm using deprecated to mean "you generally shouldn't do this, but it's not forbidden." Isn't that what deprecated means...?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Yes, it is a hefty revision, but mixing with base 5E material, like if someone wants to play a Half-Drow from SCAG say, is easy-peasy lemon squeeze. WotC really is bending over backwards to have their cake and ear it, too...and they may just pull it off



Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically. 

Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FireLance said:


> Racial ASIs then represent a shift in the mean, so the smartest gnome is always smarter than the smartest halfling.



That doesn’t follow. In two normal distributions with the same standard deviation, the one with the higher mean doesn’t necessarily contain the single highest value. 

In practice, given the very small range of possible values of 3d6, it’s probably true. But you might easily generate 10 random characters of both races and find that the smartest one is a halfling. 

And, of course, PCs are atypical.


----------



## Haplo781

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically.
> 
> Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.



I'd say it's somewhere between Essentials and 3.5, but we really haven't seen enough yet to determine one way or another.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> I'm using deprecated to mean "you generally shouldn't do this, but it's not forbidden." Isn't that what deprecated means...?



My lack of surety is sourced in the applicability. 

I don’t think the word fits.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haplo781 said:


> I'd say it's somewhere between Essentials and 3.5, but we really haven't seen enough yet to determine one way or another.



Judging from what we have seen, I think it’s less than essentials, but yeah we will see.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah it’s a new edition if you consider essentials a new edition in relation to 4e, but not if you don’t, basically.
> 
> Regardless, they aren’t changing systems, they’re just changing some parts of the current system.



Yeah, edition as used in D&D history is nearly meaningless, but Essentials by most publishing industry standards would be a new Edition. From the fairly problematic title of "Third Edition" on, WoC has abused and obfuscated their updates.

But yeah, this is a compatible shift. So far, I like everything exthe name! name!


----------



## Bill Zebub

AcererakTriple6 said:


> "Making a poorly designed mechanic better is an agenda to force the mechanic down my throat"   WotC really can't win these days, can they?




An equally viable, and far more amusing, theory is that just get a kick out of torturing certain segments of the old guard.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> My lack of surety is sourced in the applicability.
> 
> I don’t think the word fits.



Why not? We are explicitly told this is the new way things will be going forward (with some allowance for changes based on feedback.) The whole document is geared toward explaining how things will change, and the disclaimer I noted is specifically about telling people "no, you cannot just use old stuff as is, mixed up however you like. If you wish to use the outdated model, you must make these alterations." That's...what using a piece of deprecated software is like. You're not told you can't use it, but the strong implication is that you shouldn't, and if you do, you will be required to modify the formatting to match the updated version. How is that not applicable?


----------



## Haplo781

doctorbadwolf said:


> Judging from what we have seen, I think it’s less than essentials, but yeah we will see.



Essentials made zero rules changes, so I'm gonna have to say that's an incorrect guess.


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why not? We are explicitly told this is the new way things will be going forward (with some allowance for changes based on feedback.) The whole document is geared toward explaining how things will change, and the disclaimer I noted is specifically about telling people "no, you cannot just use old stuff as is, mixed up however you like. If you wish to use the outdated model, you must make these alterations." That's...what using a piece of deprecated software is like. You're not told you can't use it, but the strong implication is that you shouldn't, and if you do, you will be required to modify the formatting to match the updated version. How is that not applicable?



The miscommunication here may be jargon: I, for one, am not sure what "deprecated software" means for certain, though Inguess it means outdated...?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, edition as used in D&D history is nearly meaningless, but Essentials by most publishing industry standards would be a new Edition. From the fairly problematic title of "Third Edition" on, WoC has abused and obfuscated their updates.
> 
> But yeah, this is a compatible shift. So far, I like everything exthe name! name!



It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.

Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.

Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.


----------



## overgeeked

Knight_Marshal said:


> I disagree with their handling of mixed race characters. We do not need them to officially tell us we can take a Drow and say its half Drow and half Dwarf. We can do that already.
> 
> What we need is rules to mix and match racial features so that mechanically our character will be half Drow and Dwarf.



They won't do that. It would require balancing the races. They can't do that. If they tried, the elves would implode.


----------



## Malmuria

Finally downloaded the playtest packet and the changes are...really minor?  Mostly new long-rest abilities and tiered feats.  I'm mostly concerned that the new character sheet has a box for these per-rest abilities because it looks like a PC is going to have several of them by level 5


----------



## overgeeked

TwoSix said:


> I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic.  The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.



It also defeats the purpose for a lot of people. If they're told to simply reskin things, what are they paying for? If you can pick up any monster book and reskin everything, why would you ever buy a second monster book? A lot of people are incredibly heavily invested (figuratively and literally) in the idea that the mechanical differences between things are real, they matter, they have meaning, and they're important. Telling those people, "Nah, you can just cover the mechanics with a coat of paint," is like trying to convince a parent their child isn't amazing.


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.
> 
> Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.
> 
> Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.



Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically,  a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> I wouldn't really says it's a "can't handle" argument; it's more that a lot of people don't like reskinning as an aesthetic.  The general argument is that concepts in the game don't feel as "real" if they don't carry a certain mechanical weight.



I mean, is that true, though...?


----------



## Micah Sweet

EzekielRaiden said:


> It...really really wasn't though. "5.5e" is already more of a change to 5e than Essentials ever thought of being because legitimately actually nothing was replaced by the new class or race options in Essentials.
> 
> Like I legit do not get why so many people are so insistent that Essentials was a new edition. It wasn't even a revision! The "original" options weren't even remotely deprecated! You could freely mix and match anything from any source, so long as (a) you didn't multiclass into a class you already had (an existing rule from 4e's foundation) and (b) you could only mix powers which had a defined level. That's it. Everything else worked exactly 100% the same. Everything used the same math. Humans got an alternative option instead of getting a bonus at-will power, but could still choose to get the bonus at-will power if they wished to.
> 
> Essentials was in every meaningful sense "the same game, but more options." 5.5e is not actually the same game. You have to adapt. It may not be a difficult or onerous adaptation, but it is emphatically not ZERO adaptation. Essentials characters and "original 4e" characters required legitimately actually zero adaptation to play together or even to be blended together via MC feats, hybrids, or other miscibility options.



As far as I remember, you are correct.  However, Essentials was definitely a separate entry point to the game that could be used entirely independently of previous products to play 4e, and used a visibly different format from previous products, so I can see it being thought of as a new edition, even without any rule changes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I mean, is that true, though...?



It is subjective, like almost everything else we talk about here.  It's certainly true to me.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> I mean, is that true, though...?



Might not be, but in general if one is going to espouse a theory ascribing something to the deficiencies of another group, I think the onus should be on that person to provide evidence, not ask those who disagree to prove they are wrong.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Parmandur said:


> Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically,  a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.



.... seriously?

Because it uses a new _font or layout, _it is a totally new version of the game and completely distinct from "original" 4e. That is the line you're drawing here.

_Okay_. I think your definition is incredibly unproductive and outright misleading in the context of D&D (and tabletop gaming more generally.)

"Edition" in a TTRPG context very much means major alterations to the rules. Not just supplementary material that can also be used to play. By that definition, 3.5e had... what, a dozen editions, what with all the supplements that added new classes or reprinted old ones?


----------



## Cadence

Parmandur said:


> Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically,  a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.



I still feel bad for folks who had to get the later 1e DMG edition with the different cover.  (MM and PHB dodn't bother me so much).


----------



## Parmandur

EzekielRaiden said:


> .... seriously?
> 
> Because it uses a new _font or layout, _it is a totally new version of the game and completely distinct from "original" 4e. That is the line you're drawing here.
> 
> _Okay_. I think your definition is incredibly unproductive and outright misleading in the context of D&D (and tabletop gaming more generally.)
> 
> "Edition" in a TTRPG context very much means major alterations to the rules. Not just supplementary material that can also be used to play. By that definition, 3.5e had... what, a dozen editions, what with all the supplements that added new classes or reprinted old ones?



Yes, in the world.of books, a new type set is what defines an Edition, as opposed to a printing which uses the same type setting with errata. D&D's historical use of the term is idiosyncratic and internally inconsistent, except insofsr as being marketing horse manure everybtime. So "OneD&D" fits in the tradition that way.


----------



## FireLance

Bill Zebub said:


> That doesn’t follow. In two normal distributions with the same standard deviation, the one with the higher mean doesn’t necessarily contain the single highest value.
> 
> In practice, given the very small range of possible values of 3d6, it’s probably true. But you might easily generate 10 random characters of both races and find that the smartest one is a halfling.
> 
> And, of course, PCs are atypical.



If we are talking about a random sample of 10 from each race, you are correct that the smartest halfling in that sample may be smarter than the smartest gnome in that sample. However, as the sample size approaches the population size, the chance of that happening approaches zero. Especially if, as you have pointed out, it is not actually a normal distribution but 3d6.

That said, I disagree that PCs are atypical since their ability scores still fall within the normal range for their race. It "costs" the player the same to have a 17 Int halfling as it does to have a 17 Int gnome. However, if racial ability scores are normally distributed with the average (mean) Int scores for gnomes 2 points higher than the average Int scores for halflings, only 0.5% of halflings are smarter than the Int 17 halfling PC, whereas 4.6% of gnomes are smarter than the Int 17 gnome PC.


----------



## edosan

So after reading the document, it feels a little weird…

One of my big problems about character creation in 5e is it’s so janky and all over the place. I like that your character is a combination of race/lineage, background, and class but it’s so clunky to explain to newbies sometimes_. _It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?) and I kind of see what they were trying to do with moving stat bonuses from race to background it would have been easier to just say “roll 4d6, drop one, do it six times, arrange your stats, then add two point to one stat and one point to another.”

I think some sort of streamlined life path system - not binding some choices to race/class/background at all - might have been a better choice.

I was also hoping they’d do more with inspiration - something I’ve always thought was a great concept poorly codified - besides “give everyone a inspiration point when they crit.” I don’t see that fixing the problem of people hoarding their inspiration and then forgetting they have it. (What they should do is give DM Scotty a pile of money to use his Luck Dice concept, that would be interesting)


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> D&D's historical use of the term is idiosyncratic and internally inconsistent, except insofsr as being marketing horse manure everybtime. So "OneD&D" fits in the tradition that way.



It is a really weird use of "edition" and it's surprising it's caught on (mostly) with the entire RPG industry. But then D&D has almost always been the vast majority of the RPG industry, though never more so than now. 

Let's see. There's OD&D 1974. No thief and Chainmail as the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Greyhawk which added the thief and the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Blackmoor, which added the monk and assassin and rules for underwater. So that's three "editions" before we've even completed the initial line of books for the game. AD&D before and after Unearthed Arcana. AD&D2E before and after the Player's Options. Etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FireLance said:


> That said, I disagree that PCs are atypical




Well, they are. Look at the stats for any NPC that resembles a PC (Thug, Assassin, etc.). Obviously they are created using alternate, and inferior, rules. 

One simply cannot extrapolate from PC chargen to logically reach any statistical conclusions about races.


----------



## Remathilis

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, they are. Look at the stats for any NPC that resembles a PC (Thug, Assassin, etc.). Obviously they are created using alternate, and inferior, rules.
> 
> One simply cannot extrapolate from PC chargen to logically reach any statistical conclusions about races.



I was looking through The Spelljammer books and noticed several (but not all) of the Astral Elf NPCs lack Starlight Step; one of the defining traits of Astral Elves! 

It's a continued trend I've noticed in 5e that started with some pebbles as far back as Volo and is a full-on avalanche now: PC stats and NPC stats are not in concert with each other. There is nothing you can extrapolate from the word "goblin" or "elf" or "wizard" and assume it's similar to what a PC with the same keywords are. PCs are from Mars, NPCs from Venus, and an elf wizard NPC will not necessarily share anything in common with an elf wizard PC except maybe pointy ears.


----------



## Haplo781

edosan said:


> So after reading the document, it feels a little weird…
> 
> One of my big problems about character creation in 5e is it’s so janky and all over the place. I like that your character is a combination of race/lineage, background, and class but it’s so clunky to explain to newbies sometimes_. _It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?)



Those are sample backgrounds and the default is custom. You can freely customize the sample backgrounds as well.


edosan said:


> I was also hoping they’d do more with inspiration - something I’ve always thought was a great concept poorly codified - besides “give everyone a inspiration point when they crit.” I don’t see that fixing the problem of people hoarding their inspiration and then forgetting they have it. (What they should do is give DM Scotty a pile of money to use his Luck Dice concept, that would be interesting)



We haven't seen the classes yet. They may have further mechanics for interacting with inspiration.


----------



## Ancalagon

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not saying that’s what languages are for in real life. I’m saying that’s the main gameplay utility of languages in D&D.



If we are going to change how D&D handles races due to echoes of real world racism within it...


----------



## JEB

Remathilis said:


> I was looking through The Spelljammer books and noticed several (but not all) of the Astral Elf NPCs lack Starlight Step; one of the defining traits of Astral Elves!
> 
> It's a continued trend I've noticed in 5e that started with some pebbles as far back as Volo and is a full-on avalanche now: PC stats and NPC stats are not in concert with each other. There is nothing you can extrapolate from the word "goblin" or "elf" or "wizard" and assume it's similar to what a PC with the same keywords are. PCs are from Mars, NPCs from Venus, and an elf wizard NPC will not necessarily share anything in common with an elf wizard PC except maybe pointy ears.



I wonder if the 2024 MM or DMG will even suggest customizing NPCs with racial traits, or if generic NPC statblocks will be expected to reflect all races.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ancalagon said:


> If we are going to change how D&D handles races due to echoes of real world racism within it...




You are badly misinterpreting what @Charlaquin is saying.


----------



## Remathilis

JEB said:


> I wonder if the 2024 MM or DMG will even suggest customizing NPCs with racial traits, or if generic NPC statblocks will be expected to reflect all races.



My money is they won't bother, other than "add darkvision" or "add fey ancestry" if that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ancalagon said:


> If we are going to change how D&D handles races due to echoes of real world racism within it...



It is generally agreed upon that requiring characters to have a specific language in order to communicate effectively does not lead to very interesting gameplay. That’s why everyone gets Common, because characters being unable to understand or be understood by other characters and NPCs mostly just leads to non-gameplay. So what _are_ languages other than Common useful for, from a gameplay perspective? You don’t need any language other than Common to understand other characters and to be understood, which means the only thing left to use them for is to _prevent_ others from understanding you. That’s not a commentary on languages in real life, it’s just an emergent quirk of gameplay. I’m not sure anything could be done to change it, short of removing languages as a mechanic.


----------



## edosan

Haplo781 said:


> Those are sample backgrounds and the default is custom. You can freely customize the sample backgrounds as well.



I get that and I hope they word it more succinctly in future revisions, but it feels like they’re devoting a lot of space for a bunch of examples no one is going to take as written when they could just say “tool proficiency, pick one.”

It just seems like some sort of simplified life path system would have flowed better than “here are a bunch of packages that you’re going to tweak anyway or just make one up”

Edit: I also feel like their reliance on “pick a package, then pick a different package, then pick a class” is an attempt to fix the race problem but they could do better - also it feels like again they are giving traits/ideals/bonds/flaws (something that goes toward making D&D more than a combat sim IMO) short shrift.


----------



## Haplo781

edosan said:


> I get that and I hope they word it more succinctly in future revisions, but it feels like they’re devoting a lot of space for a bunch of examples no one is going to take as written when they could just say “tool proficiency, pick one.”
> 
> It just seems like some sort of simplified life path system would have flowed better than “here are a bunch of packages that you’re going to tweak anyway or just make one up”



They should definitely just toss out like 3 samples and say "no really - custom is the default."


----------



## overgeeked

Haplo781 said:


> They should definitely just toss out like 3 samples and say "no really - custom is the default."



They should, but they can’t. If they did, people would scream for more examples. When they provide example, people scream that they’re set in stone. Catch-22.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why not? We are explicitly told this is the new way things will be going forward (with some allowance for changes based on feedback.) The whole document is geared toward explaining how things will change, and the disclaimer I noted is specifically about telling people "no, you cannot just use old stuff as is, mixed up however you like. If you wish to use the outdated model, you must make these alterations." That's...what using a piece of deprecated software is like. You're not told you can't use it, but the *strong implication is that you shouldn't*, and if you do, you will be required to modify the formatting to match the updated version. How is that not applicable?




The bolded part is the biggest issue. I do not see even a mild implication to that effect. The sidebar literally is there to show that you don’t need to be reticent about mixing things from across 5e’s publication.


----------



## FireLance

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, they are. Look at the stats for any NPC that resembles a PC (Thug, Assassin, etc.). Obviously they are created using alternate, and inferior, rules.
> 
> One simply cannot extrapolate from PC chargen to logically reach any statistical conclusions about races.



While it may not have been explicitly stated, it was at least strongly implied in D&D up to 3.5E that PCs may be exceptional examples but were otherwise typical for their respective races. Statistically speaking, they were above average compared to the mean, but were still on the same bell curve. 

PC-NPC equivalence is a separate issue and is much broader than just ability scores.


----------



## Bill Zebub

(Tried to write a computer simulation that would make a point.  It didn't.  Nothing to see here.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haplo781 said:


> Essentials made zero rules changes, so I'm gonna have to say that's an incorrect guess.



This is false. The Essentials books presented widely updated rules representing the biggest round of rules updates up to that point.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FireLance said:


> While it may not have been explicitly stated, it was at least strongly implied in D&D up to 3.5E that PCs may be exceptional examples but were otherwise typical for their respective races. Statistically speaking, they were above average compared to the mean, but were still on the same bell curve.




First, we're talking about 5e (well, really 5.5e) not other editions.  

Second, wtf does "exceptional but otherwise typical" even mean?

Third, assuming there is an answer to #2, you cannot logically just jump to a specific statistical interpretation.  Even if the language just said "PCs are above average" it _could_ mean they further out on the same curve but it could also mean that they are on their own curve.


----------



## Haplo781

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is false. The Essentials books presented widely updated rules representing the biggest round of rules updates up to that point.



Uh... I have played a _lot_ of 4e. There were clarifications, and some tiny revisions to specific fiddly bits like "what does hover mean" or "how does variable resistance work" but nothing like adding new status conditions or changing character creation.

Unless you can cite specific examples I'm gonna have to call BS on this.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haplo781 said:


> Uh... I have played a _lot_ of 4e. There were clarifications, and some tiny revisions to specific fiddly bits like "what does hover mean" or "how does variable resistance work" but nothing like adding new status conditions or changing character creation.
> 
> Unless you can cite specific examples I'm gonna have to call BS on this.



You literally just admitted there were rules changes, my dude.


----------



## Haplo781

doctorbadwolf said:


> You literally just admitted there were rules changes, my dude.



Minor tweaks to glossary entries is not a "rules change," and at any rate this is goalpost shifting.


----------



## edosan

doctorbadwolf said:


> The bolded part is the biggest issue. I do not see even a mild implication to that effect. The sidebar literally is there to show that you don’t need to be reticent about mixing things from across 5e’s publication.



Maybe I am being optimistic, but it feels like increased market penetration means they can’t tell people to throw all their 5e books away to clear space for 5.whatever like they used to. We put up with that in the past but I don’t think the ranks of new players would.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I'm still 36 pages behind, but the sheer number of people I'm seeing who seem to think that "backwards compatible" must mean "exactly the same with no changes" is staggering. 

Proficiency isn't changing
HD and HP aren't changing 
Proficiency Bonus isn't changing
Saving throws aren't changing
Weapons and Armor aren't changing. 

There is far more that is either staying the same or just getting small tweaks. Want me to list every single change to gnomes? Here we go. Speed increased to 30 ft. Gnomish language got moved to background/standard language choice. Forest Gnomes now get castings of Speak with animals rather than their innate trait. Rock Gnomes gained two cantrips instead of the lore feature, and their tinkering is now explicitily magical (leading me to wonder if Artificer goes Core. along with artificers getting mentioned in Arcane Magic). That's it. That's not "incompatible" with the 2014 version, its actually 95% the exact same.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm getting "5.5" vibes from this. Significant changes, but trying to keep old stuff usable. 

Lukewarm takes of mine include:

*I personally like the new half-elf / half-orc / half-everything guidance*. I do like that it exists in a game that already has mechanical meat for half-elves and half-orcs, if that's important to the player.
*I'm not a fan of Inspiration as a racial trait.* I am on board the "Inspiration should be reliably expected" train. It is a cool mechanic and is really under-utilized. One element of Inspiration I like is that it is agnostic to your character choices - everyone has equal opportunity to get it (or not get it, which is more often the case). So I don't like it becoming an element of your "build."
*Ardlings are a mechanic in search of a story.* Listen, it's fine to make a Planetouched race and say tieflings are one example of them who might have some dark history and aasimar are another example of them who have some light history. You don't need to reinvent that wheel. We don't need a new race for every subdivision of the planes (Did you miss the Zenythri? I mean, I did, but I'm a Weird Dude).
*I kind of want dwarven lineages and halfling lineages to be more than just proficiency differences* *and fluff*. I'd rather that choice be meaningful rather than be removed. I know dwarves have a rep for being all the same, but the dwarfiest dwarf may be an isolated clan deep below the earth with the wisdom of ancient kingdoms OR a feral Scotsman, and that difference should be meaningful! For the same reason, the halfling-est halfling may be a sneaky adventurer or a cottagecore homemaker or a feral predator.
*I welcome the return of Life Span*. It's such a good way to immediately consider "how old am I and how much have I seen?" I've missed you since Tasha's, you weird fantasy staple, you.
*Dragonborn seem a bit like rearranging furniture*. Maybe it's worth it to give them darkvision and reshuffle their breath weapon, but I can't see a lot of value. I kind of like the "recharge on a short rest" thing that dragonborn have now, and I'd wager moving to Proficiency Bonus until Long Rest will mean that they're less inclined to use it as the encounters get closer to the climax.
*I like pre-made backgrounds*. Please don't stop creating new, interesting, pre-made backgrounds! 
*I miss the bonds / flaws / traits / ideals*. I wonder if they just didn't include them in this UA or if they're thinking about retiring them as they refresh the way Inspiration works. I like these random charts! They are like tossing a coin: even if you don't like the result, it tells you more about who your character is. 
*I kind of like the old feats better so far.* Until we have a few more points of comparison, it's hard to tell what a 1st-level feat does that a 4th-level feat does not and vice versa, but overall I like the benefits for the older feats a little better than the newer ones. Old Alert had a bit of a broader application which meant that being "alert" had a bigger overall effect on your character. New Alert is very focused on "make your initiative roll better." OK, sure, but  not being able to be surprised and being able to defend yourself against invisible creatures is more about "being alert" as a character trait, which I like better. "Good at initiative rolls" isn't about my character's story as much as it is about their mechanical performance. And you still have a big gap in power between something liker Alert and something like Crafter or something like Skilled or even Healer. There's still good feats and bad feats (that will never truly be chosen).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Haplo781 said:


> Minor tweaks to glossary entries is not a "rules change," and at any rate this is goalpost shifting.



Hardly. 


Essentials is the origin of 4e races choosing between two stats for one of their stat boosts. 
Many feats, powers, and magic items, were changed
Sneak attack changed to allow short bows
Rapiers dropped down from superior, making them a more common weapon
That’s just what I could find or remember off hand, and doesn’t get into the specifics of changes to specific options. 
The Rules Compendium also contained altered rules for Skill Challenges, and I may be wrong but I think it was Essentials that changed how often Sneak Attack could be used, from once per round to once per turn. 



You seem to be replying to me as if I’m making some other argument from anything I’ve said.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

edosan said:


> Maybe I am being optimistic, but it feels like increased market penetration means they can’t tell people to throw all their 5e books away to clear space for 5.whatever like they used to. We put up with that in the past but I don’t think the ranks of new players would.



I agree. The new core books will be a refinement of 5e that is friendlier to expansion.


----------



## FireLance

Bill Zebub said:


> First, we're talking about 5e (well, really 5.5e) not other editions.
> 
> Second, wtf does "exceptional but otherwise typical" even mean?
> 
> Third, assuming there is an answer to #2, you cannot logically just jump to a specific statistical interpretation.  Even if the language just said "PCs are above average" it _could_ mean they further out on the same curve but it could also mean that they are on their own curve.



Well, to state my assumptions and arguments more clearly: 

1. The range of ability scores for non-PC members of their races follows 3d6 plus racial ASIs. This approximates a normal distribution, and is one way to represent statements such as, "the average gnome is smarter than the average halfling".

2. Assuming a 4d6-1 plus racial ASI generation method for PCs, the PCs' ability scores still fall within the standard range for other members of their race, but are biased towards higher numbers. They are exceptional compared to the norm/mean, but they don't exceed the typical range of ability scores for their race and hence are not "atypical". 

3. Using the standard array or point buy without racial ASI PC generation methods still creates PCs with ability scores that are higher than the norm/mean and fall within the standard range for their race (so still exceptional but not atypical), but a 17 Int halfling will be further along the bell curve for his race than a 17 Int gnome. This is not my preferred approach, but I can understand why WotC wants to adopt it. 

Your assumptions about the distribution of non-PC ability scores seem to be different from mine, and that is fine. I am just stating my preferences and my conclusions if my assumptions are accepted.


----------



## Charlaquin

edosan said:


> I get that and I hope they word it more succinctly in future revisions, but it feels like they’re devoting a lot of space for a bunch of examples no one is going to take as written when they could just say “tool proficiency, pick one.”
> 
> It just seems like some sort of simplified life path system would have flowed better than “here are a bunch of packages that you’re going to tweak anyway or just make one up”





Haplo781 said:


> They should definitely just toss out like 3 samples and say "no really - custom is the default."



The thing is, the examples may “just” be examples, but they’re really not _just_ examples. They’re also there so people who don’t want to make all those choices don’t have to. Sure, they show you what you can build with the custom background syestem, but they also allow you to just say “I’m a wood elf ranger with a soldier background” and have your character be ready to play.


----------



## JEB

Chaosmancer said:


> Proficiency isn't changing
> HD and HP aren't changing
> Proficiency Bonus isn't changing
> Saving throws aren't changing
> Weapons and Armor aren't changing.



We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have talked about doing new things with HD, for example.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> It is a really weird use of "edition" and it's surprising it's caught on (mostly) with the entire RPG industry. But then D&D has almost always been the vast majority of the RPG industry, though never more so than now.
> 
> Let's see. There's OD&D 1974. No thief and Chainmail as the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Greyhawk which added the thief and the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Blackmoor, which added the monk and assassin and rules for underwater. So that's three "editions" before we've even completed the initial line of books for the game. AD&D before and after Unearthed Arcana. AD&D2E before and after the Player's Options. Etc.



I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.

By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:

1. OD&D
2. Holmes Basic
3. AD&D
4. B/X
5. BECMI
6. AD&D 2E
7. Black Box Basic
8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
12. "4E"
13. "4E" Essentials
14. "5E"
15. "OneD&D"


----------



## Parmandur

edosan said:


> It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?)



Those are only the examples: by default, wvery Backgroujd is customized by yhe player from the ground up.


----------



## edosan

I'm A Banana said:


> *I'm not a fan of Inspiration as a racial trait.* I am on board the "Inspiration should be reliably expected" train. It is a cool mechanic and is really under-utilized. One element of Inspiration I like is that it is agnostic to your character choices - everyone has equal opportunity to get it (or not get it, which is more often the case). So I don't like it becoming an element of your "build."



Yeah, Inspiration was always a great concept poorly executed. I got that they cribbed it from Savage Worlds and other games to give a mechanical advantage for role playing your character suboptimally but in practice DMs forget to give it out and players forget to use it. I’d love to see it fixed.



I'm A Banana said:


> Ardlings are a mechanic in search of a story.



They feel so random…”okay, you’re a teifling, but sorta good, plus you can be a cat or a crane or something!” I honestly don’t get what they’re going for here.



I'm A Banana said:


> *I kind of want dwarven lineages and halfling lineages to be more than just proficiency differences* *and fluff*.



Yes, I want my races to feel different as well. Sometimes I think they’re going a bit too far into the “all the aliens are humans with different foreheads” of Star Trek sometimes. It feels like they’re almost trying to make backgrounds too impactful at the expense of lineage.



I'm A Banana said:


> *I like pre-made backgrounds*.



I think they’re a good way to get people thinking about their characters and it adds a different dimension but I’d rather see “CULTIST: you were part of a close-knit religious group, maybe it was secret, maybe it wasn’t. Are you still in it, or did you quit? You decide!” then you go back to the formula to pick your languages and tool proficiencies and stuff. Heck, give me fifty like that and I’d love it.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> I wonder if the 2024 MM or DMG will even suggest customizing NPCs with racial traits, or if generic NPC statblocks will be expected to reflect all races.



I expect a table with abilities to give NPCs the feel of a race (like Tremorsense fkr. Dwarven Veteran, etc.).


----------



## I'm A Banana

doctorbadwolf said:


> The sidebar literally is there to show that you don’t need to be reticent about mixing things from across 5e’s publication.




This is their explicitly stated intention. Heck, it's probably part of the reason they're calling it "One D&D." It's the same game, see! One D&D, not multiple!

Having seen this kind of refresh happen in every edition, I think that intention is optimistic. It's not even something related to the _design_ of the game, really. It could be the exact same text with the word "elf" replaced with the word "sandwich" and people would be adverse about mixing. One need not be reticent. People will be, anyway. That kind of code switching and re-learning will require more of people than they may be willing to give (when my player says her mountain dwarf criminal has the alert feat, what does that *mean*? Can she be surprised? Does she have heavy armor proficiency? Screw it, everyone just use the new rules 'cuz that's what's actively supported.)


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.
> 
> By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:
> 
> 1. OD&D
> 2. Holmes Basic
> 3. AD&D
> 4. B/X
> 5. BECMI
> 6. AD&D 2E
> 7. Black Box Basic
> 8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
> 9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
> 10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
> 11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
> 12. "4E"
> 13. "4E" Essentials
> 14. "5E"
> 15. "OneD&D"



D&D Next actually had a few published products as well, if that counts.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have actually talked about doing new things with HD, for example.



Crawford explicitly said thst they are fine with people using theb2014 core rulebooksnto run the tests, because they are mostly not changing. He also said that future UA would be more focused than this one was, dialing in on very specific elements (Classes, probably).


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> D&D Next actually had a few published products as well, if that counts.



Yeah, good point: it's a real mess if you try to approach the idea of "Edition" in a rational way.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have talked about doing new things with HD, for example.



I suspect by “doing new things with HD” they mean more things like how the healer feat works in the packet, not like changing how they function or how many you get.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.
> 
> By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:
> 
> 1. OD&D
> 2. Holmes Basic
> 3. AD&D
> 4. B/X
> 5. BECMI
> 6. AD&D 2E
> 7. Black Box Basic
> 8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
> 9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
> 10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
> 11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
> 12. "4E"
> 13. "4E" Essentials
> 14. "5E"
> 15. "OneD&D"



You could almost count D&D Next as its own entry on this list. It’s at least as different from 5e as Essentials is from 4e.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> You could almost count D&D Next as its own entry on this list. It’s at least as different from 5e as Essentials is from 4e.



I suspect I'm  missing something else, too, this was just off thbtop of my head!

Heck, D&D Next from what I've read was moatly more different from 5E than OneD&D is looking.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> I wonder if the 2024 MM or DMG will even suggest customizing NPCs with racial traits, or if generic NPC statblocks will be expected to reflect all races.



That second one.  It's more "streamlined".


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I suspect I'm  missing something else, too, this was just off thbtop of my head!
> 
> Heck, D&D Next from what I've read was moatly more different from 5E than OneD&D is looking.



This UA does look similar to the kinds of changes we’d see from one Next packet to another. Just, you know, one small section of it.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> This UA does look similar to the kinds of changes we’d see from one Next packet to another. Just, you know, one small section of it.



Interesting, particularly given thst Crawford said future packets would be smaller!


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Interesting, particularly given thst Crawford said future packets would be smaller!



Well I say this would be “one small part” because the Next packets always included the full rules, even stuff that wasn’t being changed, and there would be a doc that summarized the changes since the previous packet, much like an errata list. So, yeah, this is small compared to a full packet (except in the earliest parts of the playtest). But thinking about how much content may have changed in a given packet? I feel like this would be a bit of a light one on its own, but not, like, tiny.


----------



## Aldarc

doctorbadwolf said:


> Hardly.
> 
> Essentials is the origin of 4e races choosing between two stats for one of their stat boosts.



Not quite. They started doing this in 4e PHB 3: 


> *Githzerai *
> Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom; +2 Dexterity or Intelligence






doctorbadwolf said:


> Many feats, powers, and magic items, were changed
> Sneak attack changed to allow short bows
> Rapiers dropped down from superior, making them a more common weapon
> That’s just what I could find or remember off hand, and doesn’t get into the specifics of changes to specific options.
> The Rules Compendium also contained altered rules for Skill Challenges, and I may be wrong but I think it was Essentials that changed how often Sneak Attack could be used, from once per round to once per turn.



Wasn't some of this already updated in later portions of 4e before Essentials? I seem to recall, for example, that there were revised rules for Skill Challenges in either DMG2 or DMG3 pre-Essentials.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.
> 
> By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:
> 
> 1. OD&D
> 2. Holmes Basic
> 3. AD&D
> 4. B/X
> 5. BECMI
> 6. AD&D 2E
> 7. Black Box Basic
> 8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
> 9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
> 10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
> 11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
> 12. "4E"
> 13. "4E" Essentials
> 14. "5E"
> 15. "OneD&D"



Definitely incomplete. If you're going to call BECMI, RC, and Black Box Basic three different editions of D&D, then OD&D definitely had four separate editions. AD&D had at least two. 5E's had at least two, if not three. Etc.


----------



## Cadence

TwoSix said:


> Working out a formula is a bit more time than I want to invest.   I mean, for values from 1 to R, each value will occur R times; for values from R+1 to N, each value will occur N+R times, over a total population of values that's N^2.  I'm sure it could be calculated from that, but seems much easier just to do analytically.



and @Bill Zebub

Ok, it was either this or do work I was supposed to do...

I think the easiest way to get the variances is to view it as a mixture distribution, where you have an R/N chance of having a discrete uniform from 1 to N (you rolled 1 to R the first time), and a 1-(R/N) chance of having a discrete uniform from (R+1) to N  (you rolled a keeper the first time).    That the mixture pretends you reroll the dice for keepers (to decide which keeper) doesn't matter since they have an equal probability either way.

So, putting the means and variances of the discrete uniform into the formulas for a mixture distribution I got:

m1=(1+N)/2
v1=(N^2-1)/12
w1=R/N

m2=(R+1+N)/2
v2=((N-R)^2-1)/12
w2=1-(R/N)

mmix=w1m1+w2m2
vmix=w1(v1+m1^2)+w2(v2+m2^2)-mmix^2

Insert algebra.

The mean comes out to be (RN+N+N^2-R^2)/2N, matching what you found.

The variance comes out to be gross, but just what you get by plugging things in.  So we can calculate it pretty quickly for any given N and R.    (I plopped those formulas right into R, and added taking a square root).

And the standard deviations are not what I was expecting!





It looks like when you get to rerolling the lowest half of the possible values that the variances start going up again, and can be larger than not dropping anything!

This seemed odd, so I calculated them out by getting the distributions in the d4 case, and they do look to be right.





Anyway, here are what I get for the ratios of the standard deviations for dropping 1s (and keeping the reroll) to the standard deviations of just keeping, for d3 to d100.


----------



## Quartz

DarkCrisis said:


> So 1/20 times my Born on the Street uneducated Rogue can perform a successful brain surgery?




You only roll when the result is in doubt.


----------



## Audiomancer

Micah Sweet said:


> No, but I also don't think Powerful Build is a particularly flavorful ability.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.




Your opinion is your opinion, and I’m not here to tell you you’re wrong, but…

I recently started playing a Firbolg Artificer with Powerful Build, and I’m absolutely loving it.

I envisioned the character as an inveterate tinkerer/packrat, and after every session I stock up on more mundane adventuring gear—the stuff you usually put down on your sheet at chargen and never look at again.

Pretty much every session, I manage to pull out something that makes the task at hand easier: Steel mirror? Got one. Crowbar? Grappling hook? Check and check. Portable ram? You bet your sweet bippie.

… plus the seven sets of tools I’m proficient with. All because Powerful Build gives me a carrying capacity of 450 pounds. It’s ridiculous and silly, and I kind of love it.


----------



## MarkB

Audiomancer said:


> Your opinion is your opinion, and I’m not here to tell you you’re wrong, but…
> 
> I recently started playing a Firbolg Artificer with Powerful Build, and I’m absolutely loving it.
> 
> I envisioned the character as an inveterate tinkerer/packrat, and after every session I stock up on more mundane adventuring gear—the stuff you usually put down on your sheet at chargen and never look at again.
> 
> Pretty much every session, I manage to pull out something that makes the task at hand easier: Steel mirror? Got one. Crowbar? Grappling hook? Check and check. Portable ram? You bet your sweet bippie.
> 
> … plus the seven sets of tools I’m proficient with. All because Powerful Build gives me a carrying capacity of 450 pounds. It’s ridiculous and silly, and I kind of love it.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Definitely incomplete. If you're going to call BECMI, RC, and Black Box Basic three different editions of D&D, then OD&D definitely had four separate editions. AD&D had at least two. 5E's had at least two, if not three. Etc.



Well, 5E hasn't had any type reset for the Core books. Difference between printings and editions.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> and @Bill Zebub
> 
> Ok, it was either this or do work I was supposed to do...




Awesome work, @Cadence.  

I was trying to (and still might) write a sim that would (or could) generate examples instead of probabilities, just because it seems that so many people don't understand the meaning behind purely mathematical results. But your analysis is great.

Then again, sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to persuade anybody:
1) I suspect no math will ever convert somebody who is just convinced that fixed racial ASIs are necessary.
2) It's clear which way WotC is going, and no argument here will change that.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> Awesome work, @Cadence.
> 
> I was trying to (and still might) write a sim that would (or could) generate examples instead of probabilities, just because it seems that so many people don't understand the meaning behind purely mathematical results. But your analysis is great.
> 
> Then again, sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to persuade anybody:
> 1) I suspect no math will ever convert somebody who is just convinced that fixed racial ASIs are necessary.
> 2) It's clear which way WotC is going, and no argument here will change that.




Sent you some simulation code in R that went a slightly different way that yours in a message too.

And no argument at all with your (1) or (2)!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FireLance said:


> Well, to state my assumptions and arguments more clearly:
> 
> 1. The range of ability scores for non-PC members of their races follows 3d6 plus racial ASIs. This approximates a normal distribution, and is one way to represent statements such as, "the average gnome is smarter than the average halfling".
> 
> 2. Assuming a 4d6-1 plus racial ASI generation method for PCs, the PCs' ability scores still fall within the standard range for other members of their race, but are biased towards higher numbers. They are exceptional compared to the norm/mean, but they don't exceed the typical range of ability scores for their race and hence are not "atypical".
> 
> 3. Using the standard array or point buy without racial ASI PC generation methods still creates PCs with ability scores that are higher than the norm/mean and fall within the standard range for their race (so still exceptional but not atypical), but a 17 Int halfling will be further along the bell curve for his race than a 17 Int gnome. This is not my preferred approach, but I can understand why WotC wants to adopt it.
> 
> Your assumptions about the distribution of non-PC ability scores seem to be different from mine, and that is fine. I am just stating my preferences and my conclusions if my assumptions are accepted.



the smartest halfing is a 20 int, the smartest gnome is 20 int

*In theory +magic


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.
> 
> By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:
> 
> 1. OD&D
> 2. Holmes Basic
> 3. AD&D
> 4. B/X
> 5. BECMI
> 6. AD&D 2E
> 7. Black Box Basic
> 8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
> 9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
> 10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
> 11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
> 12. "4E"
> 13. "4E" Essentials
> 14. "5E"
> 15. "OneD&D"



wow I knew people back in the 90's that called skills and powers 3rd edition... but now I want to start calling 1D&D 15th edition


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I'm A Banana said:


> Having seen this kind of refresh happen in every edition, I think that intention is optimistic.



if we take it to be 100% honest the intent and belief of the dev and management team is this is it... the one and only edition going forward never to change again (and I don't buy that entirely) there is still the fact that someday the sales will drop and someone (maybe even someone new not in magement/dev team today) will say "I bet if we modernize this with a new edition we can up sales for a bit"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Crawford explicitly said thst they are fine with people using theb2014 core rulebooksnto run the tests, because they are mostly not changing. He also said that future UA would be more focused than this one was, dialing in on very specific elements (Classes, probably).



and they said that about 3.5... and they said when 4e came out "The game will remain the same" but love or hate it we know WotC has a habit of reinventing the wheel


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> I suspect by “doing new things with HD” they mean more things like how the healer feat works in the packet, not like changing how they function or how many you get.



I am going to tell them I want all/most healing to function as spend a hd or as if you spend a hd

cure wounds heal as if you spent 1hd per level cast and add 1x the caster mod
healing word spend 1hd per level cast and add 1x the caster mod

then you can have cool midpoint heals... like a 3rd level spell that lets you spend 1hd to heal as if you spent 4 (so 3 shadow HD) that is better then cure wounds would be at 3rd level slot but still cost 1 hd...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Quartz said:


> You only roll when the result is in doubt.



correct, but this also requires extra work on the DM side...

I said it on Tic Tok, but if you know 3 players have training in an 'open locks tool' (theives tools, locksmith tools or tinker tools) and 1 has +3 1 has +5 and 1 has +9... if they come across a lock do you remember 1 can't make the roll? do you ask "what is your mod?" before rolling?

now opening locks the DM may (if it comes up often) have a pretty good idea, but without looking how many people can remember what players have what mods?


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> if we take it to be 100% honest the intent and belief of the dev and management team is this is it... the one and only edition going forward never to change again (and I don't buy that entirely) there is still the fact that someday the sales will drop and someone (maybe even someone new not in magement/dev team today) will say "I bet if we modernize this with a new edition we can up sales for a bit"



It feels kind of like even if sales don't drop, eventually the accumulated changes will make the string of editions like a ring species, where close ones work together but the extremes don't.

And I have to believe the commonly used name will come down to which way most of the public eventually goes (5.5 or 6 or whatever) if WotC doesn't pick one themselves.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am going to tell them I want all/most healing to function as spend a hd or as if you spend a hd
> 
> cure wounds heal as if you spent 1hd per level cast and add 1x the caster mod
> healing word spend 1hd per level cast and add 1x the caster mod
> 
> then you can have cool midpoint heals... like a 3rd level spell that lets you spend 1hd to heal as if you spent 4 (so 3 shadow HD) that is better then cure wounds would be at 3rd level slot but still cost 1 hd...



That would bring back some of the old functionality of healing surges, which I would br in favor of. But also if they did this I would want all HD to be restored on a long rest instead of half; otherwise you wouldn’t have many to work with throughout the adventuring day.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

So the ASI issue is being rehashed again.

I'm on the record wanting the fantasy species splats to define the species, PCs included, and I want the species to actually have different ranges of abilities just like they have different traits. And no, this is not any more problematic than the wood elves being faster runners than the dragonborn. I also want the ability scores to actually mean something in the fiction.

But I also understand why floating is favoured. The game is built so that the classes very strongly encourage you to max your main score, so playing a species that can't do that might feel bad. The ideal solution would be to lessen this pressure, but I doubt they're going to do that. I feel the current situation is unsatisfactory even besides the species issue. The class dictates your ability scores. Every wizard of given level will have same int, every rogue the same dex etc. At least some martial classes have reasonable way to spec into dex or strength, there should be more stuff like that.

Overall, I am a bit meh about the changes. They seem rather insignificant. I don't see them fixing any major issues and feat balancing remains wonky. So it's just a bit... I don't know, I'm not hating it, but I'm not really needing any of this either. 

I guess the classes are the real test, as those are the main crunch component. If they can make significant improvements there this might be a worthwhile update.

Also, I'm somewhat worried about the apparent move of most things to the long rest, that's the wrong direction. I also don't like the autofail on one and autosuccess on 20. A skilled master shouldn't fail simple tasks 5% of time nor a bumbling buffoon succeed at highly specialised and difficult tasks 5% of the time.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Audiomancer said:


> Your opinion is your opinion, and I’m not here to tell you you’re wrong, but…
> 
> I recently started playing a Firbolg Artificer with Powerful Build, and I’m absolutely loving it.
> 
> I envisioned the character as an inveterate tinkerer/packrat, and after every session I stock up on more mundane adventuring gear—the stuff you usually put down on your sheet at chargen and never look at again.
> 
> Pretty much every session, I manage to pull out something that makes the task at hand easier: Steel mirror? Got one. Crowbar? Grappling hook? Check and check. Portable ram? You bet your sweet bippie.
> 
> … plus the seven sets of tools I’m proficient with. All because Powerful Build gives me a carrying capacity of 450 pounds. It’s ridiculous and silly, and I kind of love it.



I'm very glad you made a cool character that used the ability, but that doesn't make the ability itself colorful and interesting.  It just means that you're clever and creative.  Sounds great.


----------



## MarkB

GMforPowergamers said:


> correct, but this also requires extra work on the DM side...
> 
> I said it on Tic Tok, but if you know 3 players have training in an 'open locks tool' (theives tools, locksmith tools or tinker tools) and 1 has +3 1 has +5 and 1 has +9... if they come across a lock do you remember 1 can't make the roll? do you ask "what is your mod?" before rolling?
> 
> now opening locks the DM may (if it comes up often) have a pretty good idea, but without looking how many people can remember what players have what mods?



If they're all trained, why aren't you letting them all make the roll?

The whole point of adding auto-success on a natural 20 is that it allows you to succeed even if you don't make the DC. Otherwise it isn't auto-success, it's just success.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MarkB said:


> If they're all trained, why aren't you letting them all make the roll?



right now I WOULD just say "yeah you can all try" but I will if Play test becomes rules have to decide every time "Do I want to give this person a 5% chance even if they can't make it"


MarkB said:


> The whole point of adding auto-success on a natural 20 is that it allows you to succeed even if you don't make the DC. Otherwise it isn't auto-success, it's just success.


----------



## Cadence

GMforPowergamers said:


> right now I WOULD just say "yeah you can all try" but I will if Play test becomes rules have to decide every time "Do I want to give this person a 5% chance even if they can't make it"



For my may-likely-never-get-made home ruleset, I've wondered about just having the 20 allow an exploding die roll (get a 20 and will another die to add to it to try to get to the DC if 20 isn't good enough).Could do similar on a 1 to get something lower.


----------



## MarkB

GMforPowergamers said:


> right now I WOULD just say "yeah you can all try" but I will if Play test becomes rules have to decide every time "Do I want to give this person a 5% chance even if they can't make it"



Right, and to me the solution to that is not in the DC of the task, but in considering whether there's anything about the character that would give them that chance.

The easiest gate there is proficiency, but other things could come into play - like if there's something that's come up before in the campaign that would give this character insight into the task, or if the player proposes a novel approach to the problem.


----------



## MarkB

Cadence said:


> For my may-likely-never-get-made home ruleset, I've wondered about just having the 20 allow an exploding die roll (get a 20 and will another die to add to it to try to get to the DC if 20 isn't good enough).Could do similar on a 1 to get something lower.



If you adopt the natural-20-gives-inspiration rule, this could be a variant of that - if the natural 20 isn't sufficient to succeed, you can immediately spend that inspiration to make the roll explode.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GMforPowergamers said:


> if we take it to be 100% honest the intent and belief of the dev and management team is this is it... the one and only edition going forward never to change again (and I don't buy that entirely) there is still the fact that someday the sales will drop and someone (maybe even someone new not in magement/dev team today) will say "I bet if we modernize this with a new edition we can up sales for a bit"



Totally true! 

I think that WotC, internally, knows that there's no real getting off of the edition treadmill (or the e.5 treadmill). At least in the near future. Like, the game NEEDS to put out a new core book set every once in a while that everyone needs to buy again because that is how you pay these folks' salary. Jeremy Crawford deserves to eat!  And that can be a good thing, too! It is commonly accepted that we need a new Ranger, probably a new Sorcerer, that some feats are Worth It and some are Really Not, that Inspiration and Downtime are cool rules that are sorely under-utilized...it's been a while, the game could use a facelift.

I think they're also aware of the friction this ALWAYS causes. Especially in the wake of 4e, I'd guess, they know that each refresh splits the fan base and causes some contention. They named the thing "One D&D," they don't want you to have to change how you're playing, they clearly don't want this to be a hard break. 

Deep down, this kind of break isn't even really about game design. Perfectly compatible or not, you're asking people to relearn definitions. Every time you slightly redefine "Dragonborn," two people at the same table who have two different experiences of dragonborn think it means two distinct things and when someone wants to play a dragonborn, everyone at the table needs to figure out what _their game_ thinks Dragonborn is. And the default bias is always toward the new and novel and actively supported version, however hard you stress that you don't HAVE to choose that definition.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow I knew people back in the 90's that called skills and powers 3rd edition... but now I want to start calling 1D&D 15th edition



LOL, it's more honest than "1D&D." I honestly feel a bit insulted by the marketing BS there.


GMforPowergamers said:


> if we take it to be 100% honest the intent and belief of the dev and management team is this is it... the one and only edition going forward never to change again (and I don't buy that entirely) there is still the fact that someday the sales will drop and someone (maybe even someone new not in magement/dev team today) will say "I bet if we modernize this with a new edition we can up sales for a bit"



So, don't think of it in terms of Edition, because that's always been marketing jargon. Think of it in terms of engine, like in a video game. This is the forever engine of base D&D, and by that standard "OneD&D" is honest and straightforward. They will do new typical editions, in the publishing sense, but they have no business interest in completely overhauling the engine under the hood (Race and Class are more like body detailing, not the engine).


GMforPowergamers said:


> and they said that about 3.5... and they said when 4e came out "The game will remain the same" but love or hate it we know WotC has a habit of reinventing the wheel



No, what I'm saying is that theybwant people to use these Races and Backgrounds with 2014 Classes, using the 2014 PHB and DMG for the rules when playing, other than the adjustments in this document. So this is material designed to be plugged in to the existing vehicle of the game.


GMforPowergamers said:


> correct, but this also requires extra work on the DM side...
> 
> I said it on Tic Tok, but if you know 3 players have training in an 'open locks tool' (theives tools, locksmith tools or tinker tools) and 1 has +3 1 has +5 and 1 has +9... if they come across a lock do you remember 1 can't make the roll? do you ask "what is your mod?" before rolling?
> 
> now opening locks the DM may (if it comes up often) have a pretty good idea, but without looking how many people can remember what players have what mods?



Gating by proficiency, it's already part of the game. A good example is Critical Role, Mercer will ask his table who is Proficient in History and only allow the PCs who have Proficiency to have a go at a check, snd those gated checks are all over the Adventure books, too. This is already standard in 5E.

So, say you have a Paladin with +3 to Religion because he is Proficient but not that smart, and a Cleric with a +8. The Paladin and Cleric are the only ones who can roll on a given Religion check at all, even if the Wizard has +5 Intelligence. The narrative for the Paladin getting it while the Cleric doesn't is easy: thr Paladin just happened to have read and retained some vital vit of information the Cleric had not.

This is super fast and easy in practice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MarkB said:


> Right, and to me the solution to that is not in the DC of the task, but in considering whether there's anything about the character that would give them that chance.
> 
> The easiest gate there is proficiency, but other things could come into play - like if there's something that's come up before in the campaign that would give this character insight into the task, or if the player proposes a novel approach to the problem.



i just don't like it... it's not a deal breaker, but I am going to say vote down


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I'm A Banana said:


> This is their explicitly stated intention. Heck, it's probably part of the reason they're calling it "One D&D." It's the same game, see! One D&D, not multiple!
> 
> Having seen this kind of refresh happen in every edition, I think that intention is optimistic. It's not even something related to the _design_ of the game, really. It could be the exact same text with the word "elf" replaced with the word "sandwich" and people would be adverse about mixing. One need not be reticent. People will be, anyway. That kind of code switching and re-learning will require more of people than they may be willing to give (when my player says her mountain dwarf criminal has the alert feat, what does that *mean*? Can she be surprised? Does she have heavy armor proficiency? Screw it, everyone just use the new rules 'cuz that's what's actively supported.)



The one point where I largely agree with this sentiment is that it’s annoying to have an updated version and an original version, that isn’t just errata. Hopefully they can thread the needle and avoid any major problems. We shall see.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

doctorbadwolf said:


> The one point where I largely agree with this sentiment is that it’s annoying to have an updated version and an original version, that isn’t just errata. Hopefully they can thread the needle and avoid any major problems. We shall see.



Do they have to? I reckon that individual tables will swing one way or another or move up to the current rules when they start a new campaign.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> The bolded part is the biggest issue. I do not see even a mild implication to that effect. The sidebar literally is there to show that you don’t need to be reticent about mixing things from across 5e’s publication.



Are you talking about the Power Level sidebar?


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> The one point where I largely agree with this sentiment is that it’s annoying to have an updated version and an original version, that isn’t just errata. Hopefully they can thread the needle and avoid any major problems. We shall see.



To be honest, if they continue to have asides in the vein of the Baclgroujd ASI sidebar...I think they can pull it off.

I am very curious to see their maximum proposals for Classes, and how they want to handle backwards compatibility.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm still 36 pages behind, but the sheer number of people I'm seeing who seem to think that "backwards compatible" must mean "exactly the same with no changes" is staggering.



Backwards compatible means that you must be able to mix and match old content with new and have a roughly equal experience power wise.  It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but the range needs to be close to the same.  If you can't do that, it's not backwards compatible.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Crimson Longinus said:


> . And no, this is not any more problematic than the wood elves being faster runners than the dragonborn.




Maybe not problematic from a biological determinism standpoint, but it is from a character diversity standpoint. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> . The ideal solution would be to lessen this pressure, but I doubt they're going to do that.




I very much agree here. I wish all characters were more MAD. That would greatly alleviate the problem. 




Crimson Longinus said:


> I also don't like the autofail on one and autosuccess on 20. A skilled master shouldn't fail simple tasks 5% of time nor a bumbling buffoon succeed at highly specialised and difficult tasks 5% of the time.




The DM can (and should, imo) rule automatic success or failure in this circumstances and not be calling for dice rolls.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> Backwards compatible means that you must be able to mix and match old content with new and have a roughly equal experience power wise.  It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but the range needs to be close to the same.  If you can't do that, it's not backwards compatible.



It sounds like they're making their own definition of backwards compatible (run the adventures and campaign settings and use most of the supplements without much work, otherwise...).

Kind of like the have a new definition of what edition means.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Crawford explicitly said thst they are fine with people using theb2014 core rulebooksnto run the tests, because they are mostly not changing. He also said that future UA would be more focused than this one was, dialing in on very specific elements (Classes, probably).



I mean, you literally have to run the 2014 version with them.  The only thing we have are backgrounds, feats and races.  You can't play with just those.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Backwards compatible means that you must be able to mix and match old content with new and have a roughly equal experience power wise.  It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but the range needs to be close to the same.  If you can't do that, it's not backwards compatible.



Exactly, and that's what we're seeing so far.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I mean, you literally have to run the 2014 version with them.  The only thing we have are backgrounds, feats and races.  You can't play with just those.



Exactly! This document has plug and play modules that are built along the same lines as other options released the past few years.


----------



## Cadence

Parmandur said:


> Exactly, and that's what we're seeing so far.




It kind of feels like I'd bet that mixing and matching the most powerful thing from each version will be a problem.

Or maybe there won't be much to call out about it beyond not getting ASI with both race and class.  (Does this mean no spells are likely to be significantly nerfed since one could go back and use the old one? Or will they errata those?).

Interested to see how important using feats ends up being to this one beyond 1st level.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Exactly, and that's what we're seeing so far.



Are we? I haven't compared the new races and backgrounds with the old races and backgrounds to see if they are on par.  The new backgrounds grant a feat, which is pretty good.  

What I see is this.  The new backgrounds are significantly better than the old ones, since they grant feats.  To balance that the new races can't be as good as the old races.  So what happens if an old race takes a new background? It will be more powerful than new race plus new background.  If they races are balanced, then new background plus new race will be more powerful than old background plus old race.

I don't see how these things can be reconciled.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> It kind of feels like I'd bet that mixing and matching the most powerful thing from each version will be a problem.
> 
> Or maybe there won't be much to call out about it beyond not getting ASI with both race and class.  (Does this mean no spells are likely to be significantly nerfed since one could go back and use the old one? Or will they errata those?).



I suspect that Spells might not get a huge overhaul on the individual level: those have been more aggressively errata in the past 8 years than Race or Class.

Also, they went out of their way to emphasize that the exact number balance here isn't ready forprinting, but these are in the right ballpark frankly.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Are we? I haven't compared the new races and backgrounds with the old races and backgrounds to see if they are on par.  The new backgrounds grant a feat, which is pretty good.
> 
> What I see is this.  The new backgrounds are significantly better than the old ones, since they grant feats.  To balance that the new races can't be as good as the old races.  So what happens if an old race takes a new background? It will be more powerful than new race plus new background.  If they races are balanced, then new background plus new race will be more powerful than old background plus old race.
> 
> I don't see how these things can be reconciled.



The new Races are on par with the old, but don't take my word for it. The 1st Level Feat is the only significant difference, and..."take a free 1st Level Feat" isn't a huge fix. That's already normal in every book published since Theros in 2020.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The new Races are on par with the old, but don't take my word for it. The 1st Level Feat is the only significant difference, and..."take a free 1st Level Feat" isn't a huge fix. That's already normal in every book published since Theros in 2020.



But only for new backgrounds.  The old backgrounds in the 2014 PHB cannot be played as they are without a significant difference.  A feat isn't minor.

New Soldier
Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
choice)
Language: Goblin
Feat: Savage Attacker

Old Soldier
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set, vehicles (land)
Equipment: An insignia of rank, a trophy taken from
a fallen enemy (a dagger, broken blade, or piece of a
banner), a set of bone dice or deck of cards, a set of
common clothes, and a pouch containing 10 gp

FEATURE: MILITARY RANK
You have a military rank from your career a s a soldier.
Soldiers loyal to your former military organization
still recognize your authority and influence, and they
defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke
your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and
requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary
use. You can also usually gain access to friendly
military encampments and fortresses where your
rank is recognized.

Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number?  Not even close.  It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.


----------



## rooneg

Maxperson said:


> Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number?  Not even close.  It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.



No, it is not equivalent, but it is also not sufficiently stronger to make it impossible to play the old version at the same table. The difference between the two characters is unlikely to be more than the difference between a weak 5e character and a strong one, for example.

Do I expect people to want to play with the new backgrounds, rebuilding their characters to do so if necessary? Absolutely. Do I think it will absolutely be required to have fun playing the game with other players who did rebuild? No, not really. In the end it’ll depend on what the new classes look like though, since that’s so much more of the power budget for a character.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> But only for new backgrounds.  The old backgrounds in the 2014 PHB cannot be played as they are without a significant difference.  A feat isn't minor.
> 
> New Soldier
> Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
> Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
> choice)
> Language: Goblin
> Feat: Savage Attacker
> 
> Old Soldier
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
> Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set, vehicles (land)
> Equipment: An insignia of rank, a trophy taken from
> a fallen enemy (a dagger, broken blade, or piece of a
> banner), a set of bone dice or deck of cards, a set of
> common clothes, and a pouch containing 10 gp
> 
> FEATURE: MILITARY RANK
> You have a military rank from your career a s a soldier.
> Soldiers loyal to your former military organization
> still recognize your authority and influence, and they
> defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke
> your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and
> requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary
> use. You can also usually gain access to friendly
> military encampments and fortresses where your
> rank is recognized.
> 
> Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number?  Not even close.  It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.



Saying "take a 1st Level Feat" is a minor fix, though. And other than the Feat replacing the roleplay feature, and the movement of the ASI from race, those are exactly equivalent using the Background rules in the 2014 PHB (although now it is strictly one tool and one language, rather than two of either).


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Well, 5E hasn't had any type reset for the Core books. Difference between printings and editions.



Tasha's marked a slight increase in font size, if that counts...


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Tasha's marked a slight increase in font size, if that counts...



No, because Tasha’s still works with the same Edition typeset in 2014, even if you have a more recent printing.


----------



## Maxperson

rooneg said:


> No, it is not equivalent, but it is also not sufficiently stronger to make it impossible to play the old version at the same table. The difference between the two characters is unlikely to be more than the difference between a weak 5e character and a strong one, for example.



It wasn't impossible to play 1e, 2e or 3e fighters at the same table as a cleric, druid and wizard, either.  I know because I did it.

The difference is significant, and that's the key.  Not whether it's impossible or not, because it isn't going to be even if the new backgrounds gave 5 feats.


rooneg said:


> Do I expect people to want to play with the new backgrounds, rebuilding their characters to do so if necessary? Absolutely. Do I think it will absolutely be required to have fun playing the game with other players who did rebuild? No, not really. In the end it’ll depend on what the new classes look like though, since that’s so much more of the power budget for a character.



To be backwards compatible, the old choices need to be roughly equally appealing.  If the new choices are going to be picked the vast majority of the time because they are superior, it's not really compatible with the old stuff.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Saying "take a 1st Level Feat" is a minor fix, though.



I agree.  If I have to fix it, though, it's not backwards compatible. 

Edit: It's also not a great fix as it now makes the old backgrounds strictly better than the new ones.  They now have the feat + the feature.  To really fix it I have to remove the feature too, which makes it the new background.  So also not compatible on that front.


Parmandur said:


> And other than the Feat replacing the roleplay feature, and the movement of the ASI from race, those are exactly equivalent using the Background rules in the 2014 PHB (although now it is strictly one tool and one language, rather than two of either).



Sure. Other than feats being significantly superior with the new background, they are the same. I agree with that.


----------



## rooneg

Maxperson said:


> To be backwards compatible, the old choices need to be roughly equally appealing.  If the new choices are going to be picked the vast majority of the time because they are superior, it's not really compatible with the old stuff.



First of all, we don’t really know what the total package is going to look like, it’s quite possible that the new characters are pretty much comparable in power to the old ones (the “Power Level” sidebar in the playtest doc implies that is a goal). The backwards compatibility doesn’t have to be at the level of individual components like backgrounds. It could be at the level of the total package. Regardless though, being compatible doesn’t even have to mean being completely equal in power. It’s certainly desirable for things to be pretty close, but we already have huge power skew between strong characters and weak characters.

Fundamentally, there are a variety of ways things could play out regarding precisely how compatible the old stuff and the new stuff are. I suspect a big chunk of what we’re doing in the playtest is giving the community a chance to tell WotC where they think the line is. If for you having backgrounds give out 1st level feats is a bridge too far, I suggest you tell them that. Personally, I don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about, since I’ve already played at plenty of tables with a bigger power skew between characters and it was fine.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Are you talking about the Power Level sidebar?



No, that sidebar is irrelevant to the discussion, as it exclusively concerns the fact that playtest material is not necessarily at the same power level as published material, because it isn’t finished. 

I’m referring to the sidebar describing what to do with your ASIs if you use a PHB or Tasha’s race with a UA background.


----------



## Azzy

Cadence said:


> For my may-likely-never-get-made home ruleset, I've wondered about just having the 20 allow an exploding die roll (get a 20 and will another die to add to it to try to get to the DC if 20 isn't good enough).Could do similar on a 1 to get something lower.



There are other games that do that. In Cyberpunk 2020 and Mekton Zeta, if you roll a nat 10 (they use a d10 for task resolution), you roll another d10 and add to the total. If you roll a Nat 1, you roll another d10 and subtract it from the total.


----------



## edosan

Maxperson said:


> Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number? Not even close. It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.



On the other hand, I think the old background is way more interesting in a role playing way than the new one. The new background feels like too much of a slide backwards to a purely mechanical 4e mindset.


----------



## Maxperson

rooneg said:


> First of all, we don’t really know what the total package is going to look like, it’s quite possible that the new characters are pretty much comparable in power to the old ones (the “Power Level” sidebar in the playtest doc implies that is a goal).



Yes. I understand that and read that sidebar.  As I pointed out to @Parmandur, though, it really can't be balanced or backwards compatible with feats as part of the backgrounds, which at this point are pretty much a guarantee. We see it with the new books they are releasing.

WotC also promised backwards compatibility with 3.5 and 3e, but 3.5 had the same issues I see here. You could run them together, but they were not equal to one another.


rooneg said:


> The backwards compatibility doesn’t have to be at the level of individual components like backgrounds. It could be at the level of the total package.



That's a pipe dream.  It's already obvious that you can't balance the new backgrounds with the old ones, since the new ones are strictly better given the feat, so all else being equal, the new entire package will be better than the old entire package based on that alone.  If they start mucking around with the classes, spells and subclasses, I really doubt that things will remain equal there, but I'm willing to wait and see.  Maybe WotC will surprise me. 


rooneg said:


> Regardless though, being compatible doesn’t even have to mean being completely equal in power. It’s certainly desirable for things to be pretty close, but we already have huge power skew between strong characters and weak characters.



It has to remain close or that huge power skew will become even more pronounced, further wrecking any backwards compatibility.


rooneg said:


> Fundamentally, there are a variety of ways things could play out regarding precisely how compatible the old stuff and the new stuff are. I suspect a big chunk of what we’re doing in the playtest is giving the community a chance to tell WotC where they think the line is. If for you having backgrounds give out 1st level feats is a bridge too far, I suggest you tell them that. Personally, I don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about, since I’ve already played at plenty of tables with a bigger power skew between characters and it was fine.



Sure.  This is just the first iteration of the first portion of the playtest.  I'm not thinking anything is finalized, except for some sort of feats being tied to background.  I think THAT is set in stone.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, that sidebar is irrelevant to the discussion, as it exclusively concerns the fact that playtest material is not necessarily at the same power level as published material, because it isn’t finished.
> 
> I’m referring to the sidebar describing what to do with your ASIs if you use a PHB or Tasha’s race with a UA background.



Okay.  I'm missing it.  How is that not backwards compatible or basically equal?  You get +2, +1 with the old race, with Tasha's floating ASIs, or with the new background.  You can't get them from more than one source, so you will only ever get +2, +1(excepting old mountain dwarf).  I don't see the issue.


----------



## Maxperson

edosan said:


> On the other hand, I think the old background is way more interesting in a role playing way than the new one. The new background feels like too much of a slide backwards to a purely mechanical 4e mindset.



Yes. It is absolutely a better roleplaying tool than the new background. I agree with that.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  If I have to fix it, though, it's not backwards compatible.
> 
> Edit: It's also not a great fix as it now makes the old backgrounds strictly better than the new ones.  They now have the feat + the feature.  To really fix it I have to remove the feature too, which makes it the new background.  So also not compatible on that front.
> 
> Sure. Other than feats being significantly superior with the new background, they are the same. I agree with that.



The feature was always a balance neutral ribbon, the DM was encouraged to make them up.


----------



## Simpletense

Maxperson said:


> Backwards compatible means that you must be able to mix and match old content with new and have a roughly equal experience power wise.  It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but the range needs to be close to the same.  If you can't do that, it's not backwards compatible.



To me, what you're describing here is "fully compatible" rather than backwards compatible. Backwards compatible, as I understand it, means that earlier content can be played used the later system with minimal issues but, critically, not the reverse. For example, a PS5 is backwards compatible with a PS4, meaning that (most) PS4 games are playable on a PS5, but crucially PS5 games won't run on a PS4.

So, I expect to be able to use 5e adventures, maybe even some player options from Xanathar's / Tasha's etc, with whatever we end up getting from 1D&D with minimal effort but I'm not expecting it to be fully "mix and match".


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The feature was always a balance neutral ribbon, the DM was encouraged to make them up.



It's not balance neutral, though.  If that was their intent, they failed.  The ability to requisition equipment and horses for use, means saving money and time.  Getting access to a military encampment can keep you safe in game.

The other features are the same. They give you advantage in the game. That's not neutral.  It's just that advantage pales compared to a feat.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> It's not balance neutral, though.  If that was their intent, they failed.  The ability to requisition equipment and horses for use, means saving money and time.  Getting access to a military encampment can keep you safe in game.
> 
> The other features are the same. They give you advantage in the game. That's not neutral.  It's just that advantage pales compared to a feat.



Yes, story-tellijg ribbons. The PHB is at pains to point out that they are pure storytelling devices, nit game mechanics.


----------



## Parmandur

Simpletense said:


> To me, what you're describing here is "fully compatible" rather than backwards compatible. Backwards compatible, as I understand it, means that earlier content can be played used the later system with minimal issues but, critically, not the reverse. For example, a PS5 is backwards compatible with a PS4, meaning that (most) PS4 games are playable on a PS5, but crucially PS5 games won't run on a PS4.
> 
> So, I expect to be able to use 5e adventures, maybe even some player options from Xanathar's / Tasha's etc, with whatever we end up getting from 1D&D with minimal effort but I'm not expecting it to be fully "mix and match".



I mean, we have already been getting stealth 1D&D books for a while, so back and forth seems perfectly doable.


----------



## Maxperson

Simpletense said:


> To me, what you're describing here is "fully compatible" rather than backwards compatible. Backwards compatible, as I understand it, means that earlier content can be played used the later system with minimal issues but, critically, not the reverse. For example, a PS5 is backwards compatible with a PS4, meaning that (most) PS4 games are playable on a PS5, but crucially PS5 games won't run on a PS4.



That's what I'm saying.  If I pull old content forward, it needs to be roughly equal or it's not compatible with the new content.  The disparities will be made worse and few will pick the older, worse options.


Simpletense said:


> So, I expect to be able to use 5e adventures, maybe even some player options from Xanathar's / Tasha's etc, with whatever we end up getting from 1D&D with minimal effort but I'm not expecting it to be fully "mix and match".



If all they mean is "Old adventures can be used" then they should say that.  Backwards compatible, especially given the playtest document saying you can use old races and backgrounds, means that you need to be able to pull one or both of those things forward and be on par with the new content.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I mean, we have already been getting stealth 1D&D books for a while, so back and forth seems perfectly doable.



I haven't allowed any of the new backgrounds because of the feat involved.  It's patently unfair to any player using an old background.  The back and forth is not doable, because there is significant disparity between old backgrounds and new ones.  And the "fix" is to make the old backgrounds into the new ones, which means that there is no backwards compatibility at all.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Yes, story-tellijg ribbons. The PHB is at pains to point out that they are pure storytelling devices, nit game mechanics.



Game mechanics are not the only way to gain advantage in the game.  And really, by arguing that the features are not an advantage due to not being mechanics is just heightening the power disparity between the new and old backgrounds.


----------



## darjr

Apologies. This thread is huge. I’ve been out.

Has the order of char gen been discussed? In the phb(2014) it’s race first. In the origins test it’s class first.


----------



## Simpletense

Maxperson said:


> If all they mean is "Old adventures can be used" then they should say that.  Backwards compatible, especially given the playtest document saying you can use old races and backgrounds, means that you need to be able to pull one or both of those things forward and be on par with the new content.



For what it's worth, the FAQ on Beyond attempts to clarify what they mean by backwards compatible and does seem to emphasise published adventures but I appreciate the phrase "_make it even better_" isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.


----------



## Maxperson

Simpletense said:


> For what it's worth, the FAQ on Beyond attempts to clarify what they mean by backwards compatible and does seem to emphasise published adventures but I appreciate the phrase "_make it even better_" isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.
> 
> View attachment 258538



Thanks!

But now this from the playtest is very confusing.  Why even put it in?

"ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM ELSEWHERE
Since 2014, characters have received ability score increases from several sources, either from a Race that has the Ability Score Increase trait or from the ability score rules in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, Monsters of the Multiverse, and other books. If you make a character using one of those older sources and get ability score increases from it, the character doesn’t also get ability score increases from Background, unless you forgo the older ability score increases to gain the increases from the Background rules here."


----------



## cbwjm

I've just been having another look at the races, I kind if feel like they lost a bit of flavour for the wood elf by removing mask of the wild, I guess they assume pass without trace will do the job.

I'm fine with the high elf gaining additional spells, but I do kind of think that there is no point is stating that you start with prestidigitation. If you can change it on a long rest, just state that they can choose a wizard cantrip.

I'd be tempted to still give the underdark races sunlight sensitivity. Not sure if I will actually bother, but I'd be tempted to. Though since they aren't the power houses of earlier editions, they probably don't really need it.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> Thanks!
> 
> But now this from the playtest is very confusing.  Why even put it in?
> ."



To make it easier to play test with other people?


----------



## jmartkdr2

cbwjm said:


> I've just been having another look at the races, I kind if feel like they lost a bit of flavour for the wood elf by removing mask of the wild, I guess they assume pass without trace will do the job.
> 
> I'm fine with the high elf gaining additional spells, but I do kind of think that there is no point is stating that you start with prestidigitation. If you can change it on a long rest, just state that they can choose a wizard cantrip.
> 
> I'd be tempted to still give the underdark races sunlight sensitivity. Not sure if I will actually bother, but I'd be tempted to. Though since they aren't the power houses of earlier editions, they probably don't really need it.



I think most people find sunlight sensitivity on a pc more annoying than inspiring, so pcs won't get it.

NPC / enemy drow might still have it.


----------



## Simpletense

Maxperson said:


> Thanks!
> 
> But now this from the playtest is very confusing.  Why even put it in?
> 
> "ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM ELSEWHERE
> Since 2014, characters have received ability score increases from several sources, either from a Race that has the Ability Score Increase trait or from the ability score rules in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, Monsters of the Multiverse, and other books. If you make a character using one of those older sources and get ability score increases from it, the character doesn’t also get ability score increases from Background, unless you forgo the older ability score increases to gain the increases from the Background rules here."



Presumably so players who want to play as a race not in the playtest document can play alongside those who do?


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> To make it easier to play test with other people?



If they're making characters, you'd think they would all be using the playtest material, but who knows.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> If they're making characters, you'd think they would all be using the playtest material, but who knows.



"Can I try a Tabaxi out with the new backgrounds!?!?"


----------



## cbwjm

I find the rock gnome to be a little uninspiring. I never liked how the ability to create little clockwork devices was a racial ability and now all they've done is change it to an effect of prestidigitation. That's the sort if thing that I feel anyone could learn, if there was a player of an elf wizard who wanted to do that with prestidigitation, I would not say no. I think real problem with rock gnomes is that they are trying to emulate tinker gnomes, but in so doing they make them magical. Better to have a tinker class than to make these abilities racial abilities. In this respect, I think it is much like the complaints people have with dwarves around how their natural craftsmanship is god-given. It's like they don't want races to grant learned proficiencies, but also, they do want races to grant learned proficiencies so came up with an excuse for it. I think they could probably come up with something better.


----------



## cbwjm

Cadence said:


> "Can I try a Tabaxi out with the new backgrounds!?!?"



I expect the answer to that would be "Yes, but you already have the ability scores from your race so you won't gain the ASIs, only the other features."


----------



## Amrûnril

Yaarel said:


> I want 2024 to be the edition that stops referring to "spell level", in contrast to "class level".
> 
> Spell level really is confusing for people. Even when I am familiar with it, I find my sentences becoming unnecessarily convoluted when I happen to be talking about class level and spell level at the same time, plus spell slots.
> 
> This has to stop!
> 
> I would be fine with refer to all spells by "spell points". So, Fireball is a 3-point spell. Wall of Force is a 5-point spell.
> 
> It doesnt have to be called "points". At this point, anything is better than "levels".




Similarly, I'd expect a lot of confusion about "Inspiration" and "Bardic Inspiration", now that the former is becoming a more prominent mechanic.


----------



## Cadence

cbwjm said:


> I expect the answer to that would be "Yes, but you already have the ability scores from your race so you won't gain the ASIs, only the other features."



Right.  I was giving it as an example of why they would have put that box in the playtest.


----------



## cbwjm

I'm gonna remove the use limit on the orc's adrenaline rush. The designers seem to be focusing a little too much on PB/long rest abilities for my liking (in general that is, not necessarily this playtest content)

I like that tieflings have some non-infernal lineages, but they also suffer a bit, similar to the elves, in being a little bit same. The Ardling also suffers from this issue.


----------



## cbwjm

Cadence said:


> Right.  I was giving it as an example of why they would have put that box in the playtest.



I figured something like that might be the case and that you were maybe quoting someone which would have provided context, but since I could see what was quoted figured I'd just shoot out a response.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I haven't allowed any of the new backgrounds because of the feat involved.  It's patently unfair to any player using an old background.  The back and forth is not doable, because there is significant disparity between old backgrounds and new ones.  And the "fix" is to make the old backgrounds into the new ones, which means that there is no backwards compatibility at all.



But again, simply "pick a first Level Feat" which the prior Background-Feat UA have said to do brings everything in line.


Maxperson said:


> Game mechanics are not the only way to gain advantage in the game.  And really, by arguing that the features are not an advantage due to not being mechanics is just heightening the power disparity between the new and old backgrounds.



The only difference is one Feat.


Maxperson said:


> Thanks!
> 
> But now this from the playtest is very confusing.  Why even put it in?
> 
> "ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM ELSEWHERE
> Since 2014, characters have received ability score increases from several sources, either from a Race that has the Ability Score Increase trait or from the ability score rules in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, Monsters of the Multiverse, and other books. If you make a character using one of those older sources and get ability score increases from it, the character doesn’t also get ability score increases from Background, unless you forgo the older ability score increases to gain the increases from the Background rules here."



Because WotC wants people to actively mix and match new and old, both for the plsytest and the final revision.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Apologies. This thread is huge. I’ve been out.
> 
> Has the order of char gen been discussed? In the phb(2014) it’s race first. In the origins test it’s class first.



That is an interesting shift, but it makes sense for the game since Class is the biggest factor in what a character can do.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Saying "take a 1st Level Feat" is a minor fix, though. And other than the Feat replacing the roleplay feature, and the movement of the ASI from race, those are exactly equivalent using the Background rules in the 2014 PHB (although now it is strictly one tool and one language, rather than two of either).



yes you can take the 2014 character and modify it to be the 2024 version...

you can also take a 1e or 2e character and make an equivalent in 3e, 4e, or 5e   that doesn't mean they are all compatible... it means you can change 1 into the other


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Simpletense said:


> For what it's worth, the FAQ on Beyond attempts to clarify what they mean by backwards compatible and does seem to emphasise published adventures but I appreciate the phrase "_make it even better_" isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.
> 
> View attachment 258538



yeah it seems more and more it's DM side compatable not PC


> does seem to emphasise published adventuresv


----------



## GMforPowergamers

cbwjm said:


> I'm gonna remove the use limit on the orc's adrenaline rush. The designers seem to be focusing a little too much on PB/long rest abilities for my liking (in general that is, not necessarily this playtest content)



I was debating that with the dwarven tremor sense... if making it still an action but at will


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes you can take the 2014 character and modify it to be the 2024 version...
> 
> you can also take a 1e or 2e character and make an equivalent in 3e, 4e, or 5e   that doesn't mean they are all compatible... it means you can change 1 into the other



Yes, but this particular change has been the standard in 5E publications since 2020. It's neither new, nor complicated.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Yes, but this particular change has been the standard in 5E publications since 2020. It's neither new, nor complicated.



1st playtest... just the origins, we have races diffrent, and backgrounds now giving feats... what part of this points to this not being changed?


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> 1st playtest... just the origins, we have races diffrent, and backgrounds now giving feats... what part of this points to this not being changed?



Every book released since Theros, over two years ago, has given Level 1 characters a free Feat. The Races here are all Tasha's Custom Lineage compatible, so following the standard since 2020 agian. And there hasn't been any issue mixing and matching stuff from pre-Tasha and latter.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Every book released since Theros, over two years ago, has given Level 1 characters a free Feat. The Races here are all Tasha's Custom Lineage compatible, so following the standard since 2020 agian. And there hasn't been any issue mixing and matching stuff from pre-Tasha and latter.



This is similar to how WotC had been slowly iterating 3e up to stuff like Book of Nine Swords, then got confused with 4e's reception, not realizing that most of their player base didn't follow the supplement train that far.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> This is similar to how WotC had been slowly iterating 3e up to stuff like Book of Nine Swords, then got confused with 4e's reception, not realizing that most of their player base didn't follow the supplement train that far.



I wish we had Bo9S classes in 5e


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> This is similar to how WotC had been slowly iterating 3e up to stuff like Book of Nine Swords, then got confused with 4e's reception, not realizing that most of their player base didn't follow the supplement train that far.



Yea, that's why they did it more slowly and with constant UA and genral surveys this time. Now they won't likely be surprised by the reception, particularly ularly yhe changes that actuate the standard house rules.


----------



## Parmandur

Has anyone noticed that 1D&D Humans are just Tasha's Custom Lineage without the option of Darkvusuon...?


----------



## Galandris

Parmandur said:


> Has anyone noticed that 1D&D Humans are just Tasha's Custom Lineage without the option of Darkvusuon...?




Not exactly, TBH.

Custom LIneage

Type: Humanoid
Size: S or M
Speed: 30 ft
ASI: not relevant, as it will be picked from Background using the mix & match rules
Feat: any that you qualify for.
Feature: Darkvision OR a skill proficiency
Language: Common +1

Compatible Human

Type: Humanoid (check)
Size: S or M (check)
Speed: 30 ft (check)
ASI: none (check)
Feat: a first-level feat
Features: a proficiency, morning inspiration.

So, the custom lineages gets an original feat, the ability to trade a skill prof for darkvision and two languages, while the compatible human gets a new feat and morning inspiration.


Depending on build, several of the older feat might be more powerful than the 1st-level feat we see (especially since with standard array, a half-feat might be the only way to start with 18 in your main stat). I'd say it outdoes the morning inspiration, while you still get two free languages. I'd say that if you're willing to play a human in One, you'd be better served, optimization-wise, to create a custom lineage "Regular citizen of Humancity." instead of playing a compatible human.


----------



## Parmandur

Galandris said:


> Not exactly, TBH.
> 
> Custom LIneage
> 
> Type: Humanoid
> Size: S or M
> Speed: 30 ft
> ASI: not relevant, as it will be picked from Background using the mix & match rules
> Feat: any that you qualify for.
> Feature: Darkvision OR a skill proficiency
> Language: Common +1
> 
> Compatible Human
> 
> Type: Humanoid (check)
> Size: S or M (check)
> Speed: 30 ft (check)
> ASI: none (check)
> Feat: a first-level feat
> Features: a proficiency, morning inspiration.
> 
> So, the custom lineages gets an original feat, the ability to trade a skill prof for darkvision and two languages, while the compatible human gets a new feat and morning inspiration.
> 
> 
> Depending on build, several of the older feat might be more powerful than the 1st-level feat we see (especially since with standard array, a half-feat might be the only way to start with 18 in your main stat). I'd say it outdoes the morning inspiration, while you still get two free languages. I'd say that if you're willing to play a human in One, you'd be better served, optimization-wise, to create a custom lineage "Regular citizen of Humancity." instead of playing a compatible human.



That's close enough that I wonder if it was meant to be a test for a new Human approach back when they introduced it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> To be honest, if they continue to have asides in the vein of the Baclgroujd ASI sidebar...I think they can pull it off.
> 
> I am very curious to see their maximum proposals for Classes, and how they want to handle backwards compatibility.



Classes are where the _perception_ of compatibility will really be tested, for sure.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Classes are where the _perception_ of compatibility will really be tested, for sure.



Yeah, it will be interesting. Based on Crawford's description of the test contents and the time frame, I think Classes will end up being most of the playtest entrues.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Simpletense said:


> I appreciate the phrase "_make it even better_" isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.




I want to understand more why they're thinking things like changing Dragonborn breath weapon mechanics is _better_ instead of just _different_. 

I'd even say I want to understand why they want us to use Inspiration more. Like, I am on board, because I like the RP elements of Inspiration, but why is using Inspiration _better_ than not using it? if groups aren't using it, why is their experience not as good as it could be? I am not following their thought process here.


----------



## Parmandur

I'm A Banana said:


> I want to understand more why they're thinking things like changing Dragonborn breath weapon mechanics is _better_ instead of just _different_.
> 
> I'd even say I want to understand why they want us to use Inspiration more. Like, I am on board, because I like the RP elements of Inspiration, but why is using Inspiration _better_ than not using it? if groups aren't using it, why is their experience not as good as it could be? I am not following their thought process here.



Well, based on the fact that inspiration is entirely missing from the new Starter Set...Inspiration may be on the chopping block. It's go big, or go home.


----------



## Azzy

I'm A Banana said:


> I'd even say I want to understand why they want us to use Inspiration more. Like, I am on board, because I like the RP elements of Inspiration, but why is using Inspiration _better_ than not using it? if groups aren't using it, why is their experience not as good as it could be? I am not following their thought process here.



What's the point of the mechanic if it's not being used? Using Inspiration is better because it's a mechanic that provides a benefit to the players using it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Well, based on the fact that inspiration is entirely missing from the new Starter Set...Inspiration may be on the chopping block. It's go big, or go home.



that is true...lets not forget they may have plans, but OUR reactions may change them


----------



## Galandris

Parmandur said:


> Well, based on the fact that inspiration is entirely missing from the new Starter Set...Inspiration may be on the chopping block. It's go big, or go home.




I'd say they are trying to make Inspiration used. It failed when it was used as a roleplaying reward, ala Exalted's bonus dice, so they introduce it as a mechanical tool so people remember it (a crit is double weapon damage and Inspiration). I suspect it will work because there is a strong chance one use it immediately on the next roll in the fight. Outside of fight, it will have less impact and people might tend to forget (esp. as it's a transient resource). 

My guess is the little sentence explaining it can be earned by roleplaying will be dropped altogether when the compatible edition is printed.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is true...lets not forget they may have plans, but OUR reactions may change them



Their plans right now are probably a flow chart of possible reactions.


----------



## Parmandur

Galandris said:


> I'd say they are trying to make Inspiration used. It failed when it was used as a roleplaying reward, ala Exalted's bonus dice, so they introduce it as a mechanical tool so people remember it (a crit is double weapon damage and Inspiration). I suspect it will work because there is a strong chance one use it immediately on the next roll in the fight. Outside of fight, it will have less impact and people might tend to forget (esp. as it's a transient resource).
> 
> My guess is the little sentence explaining it can be earned by roleplaying will be dropped altogether when the compatible edition is printed.



I think that it could go either way: if this change is embraced, it stays, if it is rejected, Inspiration may go entirely. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> LOL, it's more honest than "1D&D." I honestly feel a bit insulted by the marketing BS there.
> 
> So, don't think of it in terms of Edition, because that's always been marketing jargon. Think of it in terms of engine, like in a video game. This is the forever engine of base D&D, and by that standard "OneD&D" is honest and straightforward. They will do new typical editions, in the publishing sense, but they have no business interest in completely overhauling the engine under the hood (Race and Class are more like body detailing, not the engine).



You’re not wrong, but we’ve been running on the same engine since 3.0: the d20 engine. Yes, 4e made some big changes and so did 5e; the 1D&D changes will probably be less significant than either of those. But at its core we’re still running on the same mechanical underpinning we have been since WotC got a hold of the IP.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  If I have to fix it, though, it's not backwards compatible.
> 
> Edit: It's also not a great fix as it now makes the old backgrounds strictly better than the new ones.  They now have the feat + the feature.  To really fix it I have to remove the feature too, which makes it the new background.  So also not compatible on that front.
> 
> Sure. Other than feats being significantly superior with the new background, they are the same. I agree with that.




The feature literally doesn't do anything other than remind the DM to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are... who they are.

"NPCs who respect the military... will respect you... because you were in the military". 

EDIT: I see that this has been further discussed. Still, I feel that while the core books will only be "backwards compatible" with a bit of conversion (or at least being careful what you mix-and-match), the Adventures still being in print and useful is a lot more backwards compatible than we usually get.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> The feature literally doesn't do anything other than remind the DM to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are... who they are.
> 
> "NPCs who respect the military... will respect you... because you were in the military".
> 
> EDIT: I see that this has been further discussed. Still, I feel that while the core books will only be "backwards compatible" with a bit of conversion (or at least being careful what you mix-and-match), the Adventures still being in print and useful is a lot more backwards compatible than we usually get.



Yeah, the compatibility level here so far is very high. Very little needs to be done to make any 5E Race play nice here, and the new Backgroujd Feat approach is even something already in print.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, the compatibility level here so far is very high. Very little needs to be done to make any 5E Race play nice here, and the new Backgroujd Feat approach is even something already in print.



Yeah, I'm not sure "Careful how you mix-and-match elements from both versions, here's a paragraph or two on how you do it." is not pretty solidly backward-compatible.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

For folks upset with the notion of removing racial ability bonuses...

What if they kept the old ones, but the official rule is something like this:
"You can take either your racial bonuses or background bonuses. If you take background bonuses, work with your DM to consider how the differences between your character and a typical member of your character's race have affected their personal life. For example, if you play a dwarf with high Charisma and Intelligence, instead of the more common Strength and Constitution, how does that affect the way others treat your character? Has your character dealt with disappointment from family members or relatives who expected your character to be what they consider 'normal,' or did your character draw strength from their unfailing support? Questions like these can significantly enrich the roleplay experience, so it is always worth asking them, even if your character perfectly matches what outsiders would expect."

This recognizes the "central tendencies" being asked for, while still leaving open the option of divergence _if handled with reason and sense_. It structures the situation as a dialogue, a cooperation between player and DM, rather than one side or the other unilaterally declaring something. The existing UA does this too, but the above makes it that much more explicit.

Would a compromise like this actually have merit?



FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure "Careful how you mix-and-match elements from both versions, here's a paragraph or two on how you do it." is not pretty solidly backward-compatible.



But, as I've said _several times_ now, it is not "absolutely perfect 100% match no changes required," which IS what several people on this very forum claimed we were going to get. They reasoned from that claim to derive stuff like "they won't change subclasses," for example, which most people now consider to be a dubious conclusion (not _impossible_, but nowhere near as likely as once thought.)


----------



## cbwjm

EzekielRaiden said:


> Would a compromise like this actually have merit?



It might have merit, but honestly, I don't think it is really needed. Honestly, if racial ability scores is the hill that people are willing to die on, then let them die on that hill. Sometimes, it's not worth finding a compromise.


----------



## Chaosmancer

JEB said:


> We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have talked about doing new things with HD, for example.




Sorry, just started catching up. 

You are partially correct. They may alter hit dice, but we know hit dice exist and can be spent to heal, as per the Healer feat. And, frankly, instead of assuming that Hit Dice will now be a base 1d100 or be based off your spellcasting stats, it is safer to assume that they will still be 1d6, d18, 1d10 and 1d12 and be involved with constitution. 

Maybe they will change short rests, but we can infer from this document that they are still an hour (long rest rules) and that you will still be able to use them to buff or heal your party (musician feat gives inspiration on a short or long rest). 

There are changes, no one is denying that the changes exist, but there seems to be this undercurrent of people who are saying, for example, "The Alert feat changed, One D&D cannot be Backwards Compatible, it must be 6E!" But... is it? When Tasha's gave Clerics the Channel Divinity option to restore spells, we didn't get a new edition of the game, there wasn't mass confusion over what to do if someone wanted to use a Tasha's cleric or a PHB cleric. 

I just think it is far safer to assume that we won't be seeing fundamental changes that would prevent compatibility until we actually see that happening. Which we haven't yet.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

EzekielRaiden said:


> But, as I've said _several times_ now, it is not "absolutely perfect 100% match no changes required," which IS what several people on this very forum claimed we were going to get. They reasoned from that claim to derive stuff like "they won't change subclasses," for example, which most people now consider to be a dubious conclusion (not _impossible_, but nowhere near as likely as once thought.)



Sure, some people may have made that claim, but I mean, why would you listen to them, seeing as it was all speculation? 

Besides, what 100% looks like is entirely subjective. Plenty of people would consider THIS to be close enough. (Though I think anyone with sense would say that this is more changes than that end of the spectrum would have expected, and less than the other end did). 

There's no sense now (IMO) of keeping that argument going. It is what it is. (Though we still don't know what it ultimately will look like.) It does seem likely ATM that you will be able to play 2014 characters next to 2024 characters as long as you don't mind them not being exactly matched, but you'll have to do more work if you want to play a blended character.


----------



## Parmandur

Say, I just realized that the 1st Level Feats in recent UA were actually designed with these rules in mind...interesting.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> But only for new backgrounds.  The old backgrounds in the 2014 PHB cannot be played as they are without a significant difference.  A feat isn't minor.
> 
> New Soldier
> Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
> Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
> choice)
> Language: Goblin
> Feat: Savage Attacker
> 
> Old Soldier
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
> Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set, vehicles (land)
> Equipment: An insignia of rank, a trophy taken from
> a fallen enemy (a dagger, broken blade, or piece of a
> banner), a set of bone dice or deck of cards, a set of
> common clothes, and a pouch containing 10 gp
> 
> FEATURE: MILITARY RANK
> You have a military rank from your career a s a soldier.
> Soldiers loyal to your former military organization
> still recognize your authority and influence, and they
> defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke
> your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and
> requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary
> use. You can also usually gain access to friendly
> military encampments and fortresses where your
> rank is recognized.
> 
> Is that rank feature equivalent to rolling twice once per round and taking the higher damage number?  Not even close.  It's got highly narrow usage and what you get during that narrow usage isn't going to be anywhere close to as useful as Savage Attacker.




So give them a first level feat.  Just like you are going to do when using the 2014 PHB to play DragonLance, or when you use the 2014 PHB to play Strixhaven. We have already had and solved this "problem". 

The Military rank is something that should just be banked into the backstory anyways, if you even ever used it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Say, I just realized that the 1st Level Feats in recent UA were actually designed with these rules in mind...interesting.



Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Sorry, which rules in mind? Or which UA do you mean? I'm missing context for this post.



The Bixby/Book of Many things/Planescape test from last month.


----------



## Chaosmancer

And caught up! Woot!

Going back to the question @darjr asked, I did find it interesting that they specified choosing the class first. But frankly that fits with how people I've seen have almost always approached character creation. Classes (and subclasses) are so fundamental to how your character works, beyond every other choice, that people pick that then work in their other details. 

Also, I find it interesting that not only are all characters trilingual, but Dragonborn are Quad-lingual. They are the only race that gets a language baked in, meaning they will have four instead of three.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> So give them a first level feat.  Just like you are going to do when using the 2014 PHB to play DragonLance, or when you use the 2014 PHB to play Strixhaven. We have already had and solved this "problem".



So that's not the issue.  The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility.  If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> So that's not the issue.  The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility.  If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.



If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.



Sure.  If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent, the games are compatible. I don't hold high hopes for that, though. Already the the new backgrounds are strictly and significantly more powerful than the old ones.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> and both are roughly equivalent



Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> Sure. If they can be played at the same table and both are roughly equivalent



They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.

They just need to be in the same ballpark as all the other classes. Hell, if the 1D&D Monk played more like a 5E Warlock or something, it'd still be fine, because a 5E Warlock is in the same ballpark as a 5E Monk.


----------



## SakanaSensei

AcererakTriple6 said:


> If a 2014 Monk can be played at the same table as a 2024 Monk, the games are compatible. Otherwise the only way to have the two versions be compatible would be to not change anything.



There are very definitely some competing definitions I’ve seen ever since 1DnD was floated as the “next evolution,” and I don’t think anyones going to change any minds, which means threads will just keep spiraling into arguments unfortunately.

 On one hand you have people who will be fine with “you still roll a d20, add PB, and mod, succeed by meeting a target number within bounded accuracy? HMU with them new takes on class balance!” To be clear, I’m in this camp.

You then have a camp that already HAS been arguing that Tasha’s isn’t 5E anymore because of the changes it brought. This group, in my experience browsing here at least, is also incredibly negative on 5E. 5E art is soulless, 5E rules lack verisimilitude. ASIs must be determined by ancestry or it ain’t DnD. Confusingly, some of these people stan hard for A5E, which looks in some ways a lot like what we’re seeing in new 5E, but it’s tied to this site people use daily so it gets a pass?

Like, there was an argument 10 pages back that the way “edition” gets used in TTrPG parlance is wrong because in publishing it means changing typeset or font size or something. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone said changing the typical period after class features to a colon was just another sign of how far WotC is willing to go to kill DnD.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).



Power creep applies books released within the same edition or half edition.  So if they put out a book of good feats before 2024 which raises the power level for the current classes.  A new edition or half-edition is NOT power creep, it's a new rules set.  After 2024 power creep will come in new 5.5e books.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> They don't even need to be roughly equivalent.
> 
> They just need to be in the same ballpark as all the other classes. Hell, if the 1D&D Monk played more like a 5E Warlock or something, it'd still be fine, because a 5E Warlock is in the same ballpark as a 5E Monk.



Sure, but right now it's not looking like they will be.  Granted it's very, VERY early in the playtest and a lot will change, so we certainly can't make anything close to a final call, but feats being part of the new backgrounds is a significant power boost over the 2014 versions.  Any more and things leave that ballpark.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Power creep applies books released within the same edition or half edition.  So if they put out a book of good feats before 2024 which raises the power level for the current classes.  A new edition or half-edition is NOT power creep, it's a new rules set.  After 2024 power creep will come in new 5.5e books.



This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. 

If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Eh, I object to that. Powercreep isn't a sign of incompatibility, especially for a class that most people agree needs some heavy revisions. If the biggest differences between playing a 2014 Monk and 2024 Monk are a) 2024 Monks get one more feat at level 1 and b) the class is slightly revised to be better balanced, I'd say the games are still compatible. It just means one version is objectively more effective than the other (not a bad thing in my eyes).



Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick).  The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but right now it's not looking like they will be.  Granted it's very, VERY early in the playtest and a lot will change, so we certainly can't make anything close to a final call, but feats being part of the new backgrounds is a significant power boost over the 2014 versions.  Any more and things leave that ballpark.



By that logic all Theros and Ravenloft characters are already "outside the ballpark", because the level 1 stuff they get is either:

A) ANY Feat including much more powerful ones than the L1 feats here.

or

B) An ability that's significantly more powerful than any of these L1 Feats and in some cases any Feat per se!

So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick).  The changes have to be more sweeping than a book with some power creep in it.



They're not calling it a half-edition. They're updating the core rulebooks for the double-anniversary of the game (both 5e and D&D as a whole). 

There will be some power creep (feats at level 1, probably increased power of underwhelming classes) and slight revisions to rules. So long as the rules still work together, the games are compatible.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> So you're saying Theros and Ravenloft characters are outside the ballpark, right?




In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.


----------



## cbwjm

One thing with getting a feat at 1st level, is that if they don't adjust class to all start at 1st level, I can at least get magic initiate to feel like an eldritch knight from the start.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

cbwjm said:


> One thing with getting a feat at 1st level, is that if they don't adjust class to all start at 1st level, I can at least get magic initiate to feel like an eldritch knight from the start.



Good take.   I have taken magic initiate for this reason along with arcana skill.  However, I usually lean into variant humans.

I really like that this makes a Gish more organic and natural from the get go.

I love nonhumans getting feats for this reason


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but right now it's not looking like they will be.  Granted it's very, VERY early in the playtest and a lot will change, so we certainly can't make anything close to a final call, but feats being part of the new backgrounds is a significant power boost over the 2014 versions.  Any more and things leave that ballpark.



IDK, I've played with a "normal" 5e character and an "optimized" 5e character in the same party and the parity was a lot worse than I can foresee a "normal" 5e character and a "normal" 1D&D character being, whether you add a simple feat to the former or not. (The 5e character would be more OP, I expect, if you let the player add any O5e feat and they pick one of the "good" ones!)

Or more to the point - Balance is simultaneously not that big an issue, and more of an issue than a partial edition-shift.

OTOH if a jacked-out "optimized" 1D&D character stomps on a jacked-out "optimized" O5e character... well, then I think we might have a problem with balance.

But just missing a feat on its own is probably not worth worrying about. (In particular when you can give them one if it seems a problem).


----------



## MarkB

Maxperson said:


> Mere power creep wouldn't be enough to be a half edition. If it were just power creep, we wouldn't be seeing it introduced as 5.5e(I refuse to use the 1 D&D gimmick).



Where have you seen it introduced as 5.5e?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bill Zebub said:


> In general I suspect any question of the form, “So you are saying [insert extrapolation that attempts to make the other argument look bad], right?” is not going to be productive.



My point is semi-rhetorical. I'm illustrating that his argument that the L1 feats are almost "out of the ballpark" by themselves is obviously highly questionable, because my point is completely logical and on-beam. It's practically a 1:1 comparison - free L1 Feat to free L1 Feat, isn't it? It's not like I'm weaving in something wild.

If he doesn't respond, fine, anyone following the discussion can still see his point was not valid.


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> Where have you seen it introduced as 5.5e?



Semantics.  A "new evolution," "next iteration" and "1 D&D" are the same thing whether they announce it as 5.5e or not. It amounts to a new half edition change like 3.5 was.


----------



## MarkB

Maxperson said:


> Semantics.  A "new evolution," "next iteration" and "1 D&D" are the same thing whether they announce it as 5.5e or not. It amounts to a new half edition change like 3.5 was.



Aren't you playing with semantics in trying to declare a rules revision as being distinct from power creep?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> So that's not the issue.  The issue is the claim of backwards compatibility.  If I have to "fix" the issue by making the 2014 rules into the new rules, that's not backwards compatibility. The "fix" is obvious and easy.




That simply reads like not understanding what Backwards Compatibility is. 

3.5 is backwards compatible with 3.0

4E is not backwards compatible with 3.X

5E is not backwards compatible with 4E


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> Aren't you playing with semantics in trying to declare a rules revision as being distinct from power creep?



It's apples and oranges. Power creep comes in books written for the edition(3e, 3.5, 4e, etc.).  A rules revision is a re-writing of an edition that is major enough to warrant a new half edition(3.5, 5.5) or name change(1 D&D).  Books written for the new rules will have power creep or not.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> That simply reads like not understanding what Backwards Compatibility is.
> 
> 3.5 is backwards compatible with 3.0



Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all. 

Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.


----------



## Stalker0

On the notion of "racial ability scores", I don't mind that those are removed from the race, as long as the racial mechanics still reinforce the sterotype.

Looking at Dwaves, they have poison resistance and gain an extra hp per level. Yep they are tough....checkbox.

Now elves do have the sharp eyes...but their elven agility is gone. Mechanically there is no reason elves are known as the "lithe, graceful race". Now we can flavor it to simply say (elves more often than not have their highest stat in dexterity). And for some people that is fine. For others that want the mechanics and the flavor to mesh....this could be a problem.


----------



## Stalker0

Maxperson said:


> Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.
> 
> Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.



I had a friend that would take old 3.0 adventurers and convert them to 3.5. Yeah it was no cakewalk, it took work. I would not consider them backwards compatible.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.
> 
> Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.




To be honest, compatibility means that they can still be played within the newer rules. If we learn for example that the new wizard can only cast 1 spell per day (because they heard about the users complaining about martials being underpowered compared to wizards [they seem to listen to strange feedback]), both can play in the same adventures, yet the 2014 wizard will be far more powerful and there will be no reason not to play a 2014 wizard and you'll be able to keep doing so. On the other hand, the removal of critical for add-on damage like sneak attack, if it's compensated by a feature of the 2024 Rogue, then the 2014 Rogue will be shafted and you won't be able to play it effectively. I'd call the crit rule change a non-backward-compatible change.



Stalker0 said:


> Now elves do have the sharp eyes...but their elven agility is gone. Mechanically there is no reason elves are known as the "lithe, graceful race". Now we can flavor it to simply say (elves more often than not have their highest stat in dexterity). And for some people that is fine. For others that want the mechanics and the flavor to mesh....this could be a problem.




They took the easy way out by saying that the racial ability aren't really racial, they are specific to PCs from that races. NPCs can have other, or no, racial ability. So the elves are seen as the lithe, graceful races because most of them (=the NPCs) are dexterous (12 DEX instead of 10 DEX for humans NPCs) and, say, can reroll Dex saves thanks to their natural agility, but you PC can't (he got the ability to get advantage on Charmed saving throws, which other, less adventurous elves, don't get). They didn't think through the implication (why are most elf heroes an oaf among their peers?) but I think they tried to address this specific point.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Seriously? You think that my 3.0 wizard with his 1 hour per level enhancement spells and other overpowered durations and effects can run around with your 3.5 wizard and his much more limited spells and have them both be on par with one another? I forget the other major changes, but they were serious and there's no way to mix and match the two rules sets without drastically altering things, which means it's not backwards compatible at all.
> 
> Calling 3e and 3.5 backwards compatible is like saying that square wheels are backwards compatible with cars, because if you try hard enough, the car will move with square wheels.




Counter point. How would you convert a 3.5 wizard to 4E? 

You literally can't. None of the rules work the same, none of the math works the same. Compare that (a true edition change) to "this version has more powerful spells" which is just a matter of changing which spells you are using. "Oh, this spell doesn't have 1 hour per level anymore, it is 1 minute per level" is a far easier change than figuring out if something should be an encounter or daily power and at what level it should exist. 

Again, you seem to equate "I have to do work" to "It isn't possible". Those aren't the same level of changes.


----------



## Chaosmancer

I swear, it will be the 100th anniversary edition and we will STILL be debating the change to racial ASI's from mid-2020.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Azzy said:


> What's the point of the mechanic if it's not being used? Using Inspiration is better because it's a mechanic that provides a benefit to the players using it.




It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?

A rule has to *justify* it's existence. It has to add something to your gameplay. Or you won't use it (see, for instance, encumbrance). What is it that the design team is hoping to add to the gameplay? What effect do they want this to have at the table?

Because the Inspiration that you get from being a human or rolling a 20 isn't like the Inspiration you get from having a cool RP moment or engaging with your flaws. One rewards you for "being a human" or "rolling a 20." Do the designers want more humans? To subtly enhance PC's with the Extra Attack feature? The other rewards you for "playing your character well" or "bringing something interesting to the story." The designers there seem to want to reward performing your character in an interesting way and playing your PC as part of the story/world. Those are not the same functions for the rule.

It's similar to the dragonborn thing in that I don't understand the problem statement. What's "better?" Using a rule more isn't "better," intrinsically. Maybe the rule doesn't NEED to be used by every table. What are they trying to _do_ with these changes? Other than sell us a new core book set, what are their goals?


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> Counter point. How would you convert a 3.5 wizard to 4E?



That's not a counter point.  Just because it's much harder(or impossible) to build a 3.5 wizard in 4e, doesn't mean 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0.  It just wasn't as bad as 4e.  That's like saying a 747 is backwards compatible with a WWI fighter, because it's even less compatible with a zoo.


Chaosmancer said:


> Again, you seem to equate "I have to do work" to "It isn't possible". Those aren't the same level of changes.



No.  I equate having to to craptons of work on something that just plain doesn't work right due to drastic mechanics changes as meaning it's not backwards compatible.  Again, not having the same level of changes as 4e does not make 3.5 backwards compatible with 3e.


----------



## Galandris

I'm A Banana said:


> It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?




Characters who use Inspiration are better. Mechanically, they roll with advantage more often, so they are better at succeeding at the task they attempt. I think the "better" part was refering to the characters, not the rules, but I may be mistaken. They want to promote the use of what is, to them, an under-used feature to get advantage on rolls.


----------



## Aldarc

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.



This shows you how perspectives differ. I've seen a number of D&D channels look at these changes and see them as being comparable to an edition change. These changes may seem small so far, but I suspect it be akin to a multiplicative effect. A bunch of small changes will feel much larger on the whole, a sort of gestalt effect. 

To me, these changes so far look to be on the level of 3.0 to 3.5 or even 3.0 to PF1. PF1 has the "same basic ruleset" as 3.0, but there is a pretty big gulf between these two rulesets when played, and they are not super compatible for most tables. Your experiences may differ, but a lot of tables switched entirely to 3.5 from 3.0 and dumped the 3.0 materials as obsolete. Same when it came to 3.5 and PF1. This family of games with a similar ruleset may be backwards compatible on paper, but it's questionable whether they were in practice as far as how tables/groups treated the rulesets. This is because, IME, many groups don't like mixing and matching.


----------



## Galandris

It would be fun if the spells were nerfed. The mechanics would match the tired trope of "sorcerers of old" being more powerful and advanced that the declining contemporary ones and casting the 2014 fireball would beat the 2024, d4-damage fireball.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is a really weird semantics argument. I view the updated ruleset as the same edition. It's much smaller of a change that any edition change from the past 20 years, so I really don't think it's a new edition. It would be "powercreep" compared to the 2014 content, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> If they use the same basic ruleset with a few changes, its the same edition. If different versions of the same class can play at the same table without any major issues, the different rulesets are compatible, regardless of changes in the class's mechanics.



On the flipside, you're using a really artificial and D&D-specific standard, i.e. "was the change as much as 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, or 4E to 5E?".

D&D is remarkable in that through the last 22 years, it's had much bigger rules-changes in its editions than almost any RPG on the market. Most other RPGs go through a sort of incremental change, where the rules remain largely similar, but some specific bits are tweaked. They don't fundamentally change basic approaches in the way D&D editions did (for example, all those editions have different and incompatible skill systems, saving throw systems, attack systems, HP systems, etc.). I mean, if we look at the new Hunter: The Reckoning, like the basic way the rules work, the way a character is built, and so on is extremely similar to Vampire: The Masquerade 1E back in 1991 (the biggest change is a conceptual one, which is too fiddly to discuss here).

Even oWoD to nWoD, rules-wise, is a far smaller change than any D&D edition change from 2E to 3E onwards.

And if we look at the RPG market in general, easily 95% of RPGs which have an edition change have a change more like 1E to 2E. One of the few real counter-examples would be PF1 to PF2, I note.

The general RPG standard of "edition change" is pretty small, and the edition is used to make it clear to people that whilst the rules may be largely compatible, they're not identical.

WotC are effectively attempt to flip that on its head. Which is bold. They're making significant changes, which will likely leave the rules largely compatible, but instead of highlighting that and making it clear it's an edition change, WotC are trying to bury it, and making out that it's not, it's just a continuation. It's an interesting strategy.

Realistically, this is obviously an edition-change. Even what we have so far, without anything more, is outside the range of what 3.5E did. And there's going to be tons and tons more. If it doesn't exceed the changes from 1E to 2E I'll be shocked, and that means by any normal standard, it's an edition change. It's just a reversion to the RPG norm, rather than the huge and bold changes WotC made previously.


----------



## Galandris

Hasbro, after a long pondering, validated the backward compatibility strategy.






White starts with a full house.


----------



## MarkB

I'm A Banana said:


> It's a fair question. Here's the thing I'm wondering. If the people who don't use Inspiration are happy, and the people who use Inspiration are happy...why is it "better" to use Inspiration? What does it help the game to do? How does it improve play at the table? What are the people who aren't using it missing out on?



I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.

This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.


----------



## Bill Zebub

MarkB said:


> I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.
> 
> This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.




Exactly this.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?

Looks like no, so I’ll think of it as a new edition. 

Incidentally, I get the impression that a number of people will stick with 5e, but interestingly it seems most if those won’t use Tasha’s optional rules except for rangers and maybe some subclasses.


----------



## Cadence

RE: 5.5e vs. 6e

If I'm using 1-2 or 3-3.5 as a reference for change, this feels like a 6e.  If I'm using 2-3 or 3.5-4 or 4-5 it feels like a 5.5.

Given that most players aren't old as dirt like some of us, I think I'd vote 5.5, and expect a bunch of older players on here to defiantly use 6.


----------



## plisnithus8

Retreater said:


> Not sure what you're referring too since I just finished the video and posted about 5 minutes later - I don't think my memory is that bad (yet).
> 
> Well he talks about recharge for dragons breath as a special attack. But that a bugbear with a club just shouldn't have a scary or exciting feature, just a standard 12 damage every time. Unless every monster gets a recharge/encounter ability - which could be cool.
> But man, this isn't looking like my teacup the more I'm learning.



Having lower level monsters do less unpredictable damage might be an answer to tier 1 PC death.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I’m kind of astonished (but maybe I shouldn’t be) at how important the definition of “edition” is to so many people.


----------



## House_Of_Dexter

Leatherhead said:


> The Video goes over some interesting points:
> Backgrounds are now "Custom default" with your choice of stat boosts and a level 1 feat.
> Feats are now separated into levels, level 1 feats don't have stats, higher level feats can have a +1 bonus for a stat in order to soften the blow of having to pick between ASIs and a Feat.
> Crits are a player only thing, with spells not being able to crit, effectively Martial only.
> The spell lists are going to be split up into Arcane, Divine, and Primal. Classes will pick one of the lists and have additional spells added to their lists.
> Races are going to get new options.
> Inspiration is going to be reworked so that the DM doesn't have to remember it all the time.



They really need to rewrite Criticals and clarify things, since it's such a drastic move from 5e.  Is this meant as only damage that is doubled being the actual weapon dice and nothing else?  No smites, no sneak attack, etc.?


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> This shows you how perspectives differ. I've seen a number of D&D channels look at these changes and see them as being comparable to an edition change. These changes may seem small so far, but I suspect it be akin to a multiplicative effect. A bunch of small changes will feel much larger on the whole, a sort of gestalt effect.
> 
> To me, these changes so far look to be on the level of 3.0 to 3.5 or even 3.0 to PF1. PF1 has the "same basic ruleset" as 3.0, but there is a pretty big gulf between these two rulesets when played, and they are not super compatible for most tables. Your experiences may differ, but a lot of tables switched entirely to 3.5 from 3.0 and dumped the 3.0 materials as obsolete. Same when it came to 3.5 and PF1. This family of games with a similar ruleset may be backwards compatible on paper, but it's questionable whether they were in practice as far as how tables/groups treated the rulesets. This is because, IME, many groups don't like mixing and matching.



You see, I learned D&D in an environment where people were we mixing and matching 3.0 with 3.5, with performance practices based in 2E. I really don't think it is abnormal. And, this test is designed to test out mixing and matching the rules.


----------



## MarkB

House_Of_Dexter said:


> They really need to rewrite Criticals and clarify things, since it's such a drastic move from 5e.  Is this meant as only damage that is doubled being the actual weapon dice and nothing else?  No smites, no sneak attack, etc.?



Yes - weapon or unarmed strike dice only. Plus, if you're rolled a 20, you gain Inspiration.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> On the flipside, you're using a really artificial and D&D-specific standard, i.e. "was the change as much as 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E, or 4E to 5E?".
> 
> D&D is remarkable in that through the last 22 years, it's had much bigger rules-changes in its editions than almost any RPG on the market. Most other RPGs go through a sort of incremental change, where the rules remain largely similar, but some specific bits are tweaked. They don't fundamentally change basic approaches in the way D&D editions did (for example, all those editions have different and incompatible skill systems, saving throw systems, attack systems, HP systems, etc.). I mean, if we look at the new Hunter: The Reckoning, like the basic way the rules work, the way a character is built, and so on is extremely similar to Vampire: The Masquerade 1E back in 1991 (the biggest change is a conceptual one, which is too fiddly to discuss here).
> 
> Even oWoD to nWoD, rules-wise, is a far smaller change than any D&D edition change from 2E to 3E onwards.
> 
> And if we look at the RPG market in general, easily 95% of RPGs which have an edition change have a change more like 1E to 2E. One of the few real counter-examples would be PF1 to PF2, I note.
> 
> The general RPG standard of "edition change" is pretty small, and the edition is used to make it clear to people that whilst the rules may be largely compatible, they're not identical.
> 
> WotC are effectively attempt to flip that on its head. Which is bold. They're making significant changes, which will likely leave the rules largely compatible, but instead of highlighting that and making it clear it's an edition change, WotC are trying to bury it, and making out that it's not, it's just a continuation. It's an interesting strategy.
> 
> Realistically, this is obviously an edition-change. Even what we have so far, without anything more, is outside the range of what 3.5E did. And there's going to be tons and tons more. If it doesn't exceed the changes from 1E to 2E I'll be shocked, and that means by any normal standard, it's an edition change. It's just a reversion to the RPG norm, rather than the huge and bold changes WotC made previously.



Yeah, and not just an RPG norm, but a general pulishing norm. "Edition" is a term of art in publishing, and what WotC has done with Edition over the years is a serious abuse of terminology. 3.5 constituted a new Edition by general publishing standards, as did 4E Essentials.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Galandris said:


> Characters who use Inspiration are better. Mechanically, they roll with advantage more often, so they are better at succeeding at the task they attempt. I think the "better" part was refering to the characters, not the rules, but I may be mistaken. They want to promote the use of what is, to them, an under-used feature to get advantage on rolls.



An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."

There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.

Inspiration, however, is a horse of a slightly different color. That mechanic - the DM hands out a player-activated Advantage for good RP - *is* under-utilized and potentially cool. The reason it's cool, IMO, is because it encourages good RP. If the designers want more good RP, then encouraging Inspiration more is a good idea, and I am on board that train, but these mechanics *don't really work toward that goal*. Being a human or rolling a 20 aren't things that are related to interesting character or story moments. They're parts of your build or out of your control, not things you decide to do during play to have an effect.


----------



## MarkB

I'm A Banana said:


> An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."
> 
> There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.



True for attacks, and for some ability checks. It's harder to come by for saving throws, though (the new gnome notwithstanding).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I'm A Banana said:


> but these mechanics *don't really work toward that goal*



Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.

There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.


----------



## rooneg

I'm A Banana said:


> An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."
> 
> There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.
> 
> Inspiration, however, is a horse of a slightly different color. That mechanic - the DM hands out a player-activated Advantage for good RP - *is* under-utilized and potentially cool. The reason it's cool, IMO, is because it encourages good RP. If the designers want more good RP, then encouraging Inspiration more is a good idea, and I am on board that train, but these mechanics *don't really work toward that goal*. Being a human or rolling a 20 aren't things that are related to interesting character or story moments. They're parts of your build or out of your control, not things you decide to do during play to have an effect.



I think this is pretty clearly the developers saying "Okay, the game was meant to operate with a fair amount of Inspiration floating around, but none of the DMs are actually giving it out at anywhere near the rate we anticipated, what else can we spend that inspiration on?" Thus you get it answering the question of "Hey, what special thing can we give to Humans once 'you get a feat' is less special because everyone's getting that?"


----------



## MarkB

Ruin Explorer said:


> Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.
> 
> There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.



It doesn't just overlap with advantage, it is advantage. Which makes the current version particularly of note to rogues, since in compensation for not doubling their sneak attack damage on a crit, they do instead get a guaranteed sneak attack next turn.


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.
> 
> There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.




"I am Inspired. I am ELATED. I CAN DO GREAT THINGS! I CAN REACH THE SKY!!!!!! *I CAN...*

take 10 ensuring an averageish result."

I agree with your general point, not your particular example.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> "I am Inspired. I am ELATED. I CAN DO GREAT THINGS! I CAN REACH THE SKY!!!!!! *I CAN...*
> 
> take 10 ensuring an averageish result."
> 
> I agree with your general point, not your particular example.



The problem with Advantage being supposed to be a great thing is that it's reasonably likely you'll get two bad rolls, which feels pretty bad. The great thing about take 10 is you can guarantee what you're getting.


----------



## House_Of_Dexter

With this rule changes, I can't stop but think about 3 to 3.5


----------



## I'm A Banana

MarkB said:


> I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.
> 
> This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.



Totally with you on forgetting about it. Really easy to do, both as a player and as a DM.

And I think this is the rub for the playtest: *why* do you want to use Inspiration? What's missing from your games that this would add? Do you want more human rogues or to reward characters with Extra Attack?


----------



## OB1

MarkB said:


> It doesn't just overlap with advantage, it is advantage. Which makes the current version particularly of note to rogues, since in compensation for not doubling their sneak attack damage on a crit, they do instead get a guaranteed sneak attack next turn.



This happened on Saturday in my group when we decided to playtest the new rule in our first Spelljammer session.  The Rogue LOVED it.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> That's not a counter point.  Just because it's much harder(or impossible) to build a 3.5 wizard in 4e, doesn't mean 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0.  It just wasn't as bad as 4e.  That's like saying a 747 is backwards compatible with a WWI fighter, because it's even less compatible with a zoo.




No, because Zoos aren't a type of plane. 

4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and locations like a zoo. 


And while I acknowledge it could require a degree of work to convert from 3.0 to 3.5.... people did it. It was imminently possible. 

No one tried converting from 3.5 to 4e, because it was impossible. It could not be done. They were incompatible. 




Maxperson said:


> No.  I equate having to to craptons of work on something that just plain doesn't work right due to drastic mechanics changes as meaning it's not backwards compatible.  Again, not having the same level of changes as 4e does not make 3.5 backwards compatible with 3e.




Even if you can claim that converting between 3.0 and 3.5 was so difficult that it made backwards compatbility impossible.... you literally cannot make the same claim for OD&D. Converting between them isn't difficult, and there are only very corner case things that cannot be easily handled. 

Again "backwards compatible" doesn't mean "identical".


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> No, because Zoos aren't a type of plane.



Exactly.  4e is not an edition of 3e.  It's the Zoo to the planes of 3e and 3.5. You've chosen something completely different, but if you like, you're saying that the the jumbo jet(3e) is backwards compatible with the WWI fighter(3.5), because it's even less compatible with a car(4e).  Then they are all vehicles(RPGs).  


Chaosmancer said:


> And while I acknowledge it could require a degree of work to convert from 3.0 to 3.5.... people did it. It was imminently possible.



It's also possible to kludge 3e and 4e together.  It would just take more work.  Possibility =/= compatibility.


Chaosmancer said:


> No one tried converting from 3.5 to 4e, because it was impossible.



Why do you think it's impossible?  I could convert a 3e character to 4e.  It would have the same level, class, stats, items, etc.  The powers would be different, but it would still be the character converted.


Chaosmancer said:


> Again "backwards compatible" doesn't mean "identical".



I'm not claiming it is.  Backwards compatibility = easy, though.  If it's hard and/or takes a lot of work, it's not backwards compatible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?



I will, judging by what I’ve seen thus far.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

jmartkdr2 said:


> Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?
> 
> Looks like no, so I’ll think of it as a new edition.




They really, _really_ didn't want you to say "I'm playing 5e" in the first place. They wanted (and still want) you to say that you're "playing Dungeons & Dragons".


----------



## cbwjm

jmartkdr2 said:


> Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?
> 
> Looks like no, so I’ll think of it as a new edition.
> 
> Incidentally, I get the impression that a number of people will stick with 5e, but interestingly it seems most if those won’t use Tasha’s optional rules except for rangers and maybe some subclasses.



I will, I still use 3e to encompass 3e/3.5. I expect I'll still use 5e to cover the start of 5e and this revision.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  4e is not an edition of 3e.  It's the Zoo to the planes of 3e and 3.5. You've chosen something completely different, but if you like, you're saying that the the jumbo jet(3e) is backwards compatible with the WWI fighter(3.5), because it's even less compatible with a car(4e).  Then they are all vehicles(RPGs).




4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and cars. 




Maxperson said:


> It's also possible to kludge 3e and 4e together.  It would just take more work.  Possibility =/= compatibility.
> 
> 
> Why do you think it's impossible?  I could convert a 3e character to 4e.  It would have the same level, class, stats, items, etc.  The powers would be different, but it would still be the character converted.




No, actually it isn't. The fundamental math and expectations are incompatible.

Your 4e wizard could have the same level, but 4e was a core 30 level game, where 3E was a core 20 level game with splat expansion. Being called a wizard in 4e meant fundamentally different things, for example. a 4e wizard didn't make scrolls and have a familiar, those were core to 3e wizards. Your stats were WILDLY different. They looked the same, but they were applied in completely different ways with completely different outcomes. For 4e having a high dexterity for a wizard was fundamentally worthless, while having a high wisdom OR charisma was far more useful. None of the items worked the same way, they may share a name if you are talking the high level stuff, but sharing a name does not the same thing make.




Maxperson said:


> I'm not claiming it is.  Backwards compatibility = easy, though.  If it's hard and/or takes a lot of work, it's not backwards compatible.




Backwards compatibility does not mean easy. If it meant easy, then you wouldn't need to buy adapters for technology.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FitzTheRuke said:


> They really, _really_ didn't want you to say "I'm playing 5e" in the first place. They wanted (and still want) you to say that you're "playing Dungeons & Dragons".



Yeah, and the thing is, we will, but we'll mean a specific edition, usually the current one, but sometimes we'll need to specify, and this WotC thing where they're trying to deny anyone the ability to specify is just pissing in the wind, frankly. It's like, unless WotC make their own name for 1D&D that actually sticks and isn't dumb (so not 1D&D), it's going to be called 6E in the longer-term. Doesn't matter if that's wrong or whatever, like even if 5.5E was "more accurate", because WotC won't popularize it, whatever is most simple and distinguishes it most obviously will stick, and that, in say, four years, will almost certainly be 6E (again, even if that's "wrong").

The only way that doesn't happen is if basically every playtest rejects most of the changes, which I very much doubt.


----------



## Maxperson

Chaosmancer said:


> 4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and cars.



Planes and cars have engines, wheels, use fuel, etc.  They are just as comparable as two editions of D&D.


Chaosmancer said:


> No, actually it isn't. The fundamental math and expectations are incompatible.
> 
> Your 4e wizard could have the same level, but 4e was a core 30 level game, where 3E was a core 20 level game with splat expansion. Being called a wizard in 4e meant fundamentally different things, for example. a 4e wizard didn't make scrolls and have a familiar, those were core to 3e wizards. Your stats were WILDLY different. They looked the same, but they were applied in completely different ways with completely different outcomes. For 4e having a high dexterity for a wizard was fundamentally worthless, while having a high wisdom OR charisma was far more useful. None of the items worked the same way, they may share a name if you are talking the high level stuff, but sharing a name does not the same thing make.



Much like planes and cars.


Chaosmancer said:


> Backwards compatibility does not mean easy. If it meant easy, then you wouldn't need to buy adapters for technology.



Yes it does. Otherwise you are putting a jet engine and wings on a car to get it to fly.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, and the thing is, we will, but we'll mean a specific edition, usually the current one, but sometimes we'll need to specify, and this WotC thing where they're trying to deny anyone the ability to specify is just pissing in the wind, frankly. It's like, unless WotC make their own name for 1D&D that actually sticks and isn't dumb (so not 1D&D), it's going to be called 6E in the longer-term. Doesn't matter if that's wrong or whatever, like even if 5.5E was "more accurate", because WotC won't popularize it, whatever is most simple and distinguishes it most obviously will stick, and that, in say, four years, will almost certainly be 6E (again, even if that's "wrong").
> 
> The only way that doesn't happen is if basically every playtest rejects most of the changes, which I very much doubt.




Oh, I agree. I wasn't implying that I thought it was sensible. I'm pretty sure "One D&D" is the name of the playtest (well, the name of the _initiative_, really) and the books will be called "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition" (So we can call it 50th, if we need to).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

FitzTheRuke said:


> Oh, I agree. I wasn't implying that I thought it was sensible. I'm pretty sure "One D&D" is the name of the playtest (well, the name of the _initiative_, really) and the books will be called "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition" (So we can call it 50th, if we need to).




Yep. Just like the last big playtest was D&D Next. But no one still says that we are playing D&D Next.


----------



## jmartkdr2

FitzTheRuke said:


> They really, _really_ didn't want you to say "I'm playing 5e" in the first place. They wanted (and still want) you to say that you're "playing Dungeons & Dragons".



Yeah, someone in marketing has told them to never say the word “edition” again.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Yeah, someone in marketing has told them to never say the word “edition” again.



Lolol it’s funny to me how folks refuse to acknowledge that the designers themselves agree with these decisions and may well be the starting point of them. 

Like…you don’t think the 4e edition wars changed how the people who make D&D view the idea of editions?


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Like…you don’t think the 4e edition wars changed how the people who make D&D view the idea of editions?



Do you think there won't be editions wars out there just because they'll call it One D&D or whatever they decide to call 6e when it comes out?  People argue because of the changes, not because they're labeled editions.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Do you think there won't be editions wars out there just because they'll call it One D&D or whatever they decide to call 6e when it comes out?  People argue because of the changes, not because they're labeled editions.



I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.



Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars.  That was the appearance anyway.  If you had another meaning, I missed it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars.  That was the appearance anyway.  If you had another meaning, I missed it.



My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.



You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.

Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.



Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition. 


Maxperson said:


> Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth.



It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war. 

Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition.



I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D.  The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.


doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war.
> 
> Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.



That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did.  The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D.  The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.



Okay? You seem to be aggressively missing the point. 


Maxperson said:


> That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did.  The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.



I didn’t claim that it did, nor that it would. 

Again, you are replying to things I haven’t said.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> You’re not wrong, but we’ve been running on the same engine since 3.0: the d20 engine. Yes, 4e made some big changes and so did 5e; the 1D&D changes will probably be less significant than either of those. But at its core we’re still running on the same mechanical underpinning we have been since WotC got a hold of the IP.



I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine? 

I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine?
> 
> I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.



Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.



I know what the d20 system is. Very obviously. That isn’t what you said, first of all. You referred simply to the d20 resolution mechanic. Ie, roll d20 add mods compare to target number. 

4e and 5e are not the same engine as the d20 system, however, so even if you _meant_ the d20 system as a whole, it doesn’t work. 

Things like unified bonus progression, advantage, and bounded accuracy, are enough to make them different “rules engines”.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I know what the d20 system is. Very obviously. That isn’t what you said, first of all. You referred simply to the d20 resolution mechanic. Ie, roll d20 add mods compare to target number.



Well I said “the d20 engine.” I assumed it would be clear from context that I meant the system rather than just the resolution mechanic, but I guess I should have specified.


doctorbadwolf said:


> 4e and 5e are not the same engine as the d20 system, however, so even if you _meant_ the d20 system as a whole, it doesn’t work.
> 
> Things like unified bonus progression, advantage, and bounded accuracy, are enough to make them different “rules engines”.



 Each edition has made changes to the system, yes, but personally I still see them as fundamentally running on the same engine. But whatever, if you don’t like that terminology, I’m not going to argue it with you.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Maxperson said:


> Planes and cars have engines, wheels, use fuel, etc.  They are just as comparable as two editions of D&D.




No they are not



Maxperson said:


> Much like planes and cars.




They are not comparable. Heck, just to begin with, they aren't made by the same people. Your car mechanic cannot work on a military fighter jet.



Maxperson said:


> Yes it does. Otherwise you are putting a jet engine and wings on a car to get it to fly.




No, backwards compatible doesn't mean that it is easy and requires no work.


----------



## CubicsRube

MarkB said:


> It doesn't just overlap with advantage, it is advantage. Which makes the current version particularly of note to rogues, since in compensation for not doubling their sneak attack damage on a crit, they do instead get a guaranteed sneak attack next turn.



In addition to this, it creates an interesting momentum dynamic. If you use inspiration to get advantage, you have increased chances of rolling another 20, which gives you more inspiration, etc


----------



## House_Of_Dexter

CubicsRube said:


> In addition to this, it creates an interesting momentum dynamic. If you use inspiration to get advantage, you have increased chances of rolling another 20, which gives you more inspiration, etc



Heh...I wouldn't call rolling a 5% chance twice as dynamic...


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?




I was going to say that an essential aspect of being a grognard is an unshakeable belief that forum credibility is proportional to number of years gaming, and that if you slip in that reference about meeting Gary in 1978 everybody will suddenly decide that your opinion on ASIs or orc culture or burning trolls must be the correct one after all.

But I think I missed my chance a number of pages ago.

That might not even have been this thread, now that I think about it.


----------



## cbwjm

FitzTheRuke said:


> I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?



I honestly thought I'd stopped watching this thread more or less due to this reason.


----------



## Chaosmancer

FitzTheRuke said:


> I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?




We could discuss some of the feats, but I think there are threads I haven't caught up on doing that. I'm trying to make a feat document that makes more 1st level feats from other sources, but figuring the balance on the existing 1st level feats is a bit tricky. Especially since I've buffed some of those feats before.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Chaosmancer said:


> We could discuss some of the feats, but I think there are threads I haven't caught up on doing that. I'm trying to make a feat document that makes more 1st level feats from other sources, but figuring the balance on the existing 1st level feats is a bit tricky. Especially since I've buffed some of those feats before.



There's a thread on the feats somewhere. I mean, there's a thread on just about every aspect of the OneD&D playtest UA (plus a bunch of speculation ones). It's possible that this one, being the General Discussion Thread, really HAS come to its end. I dunno. I just think we could discuss something more interesting than a narrow definition of what the D20 System is (or was) or what's more compatible: D&D Editions, or planes, cars, and zoos. 

Not to single anyone out! ;-P (Remember: I love you all, you weird group of lovable misfits!)


----------



## Cadence

Due tomorrow right? Filled out my survey and left most blank (well no-opinion) because I didn't actually playtest them in a game setting or didn't care.

Races - Said I loved Ardling - except that wings for flying seemed odd, and the flying mechanic seemed poorly designed.  (What about a floating cloud or  a rainbow bridge?  Why do you fall if you have more uses available?  Why is it same speed going up or down or horizontal?)

Backgrounds -

Said I thought they needed to hit harder that the standard was build your own background (and maybe put in an option or two inside some of the sample ones to make that clear).
Said they missed some real opportunities to avoid stereotypes and to play against type by the language choices for gladiator and sage.
And said I'd prefer the ASI examples to be assignable to other things too in the background (strong because of family story of giant blood, strong because trained towards class and not just background, etc...).
Rules - Said I really hated the auto-success on a 20 for a DC of up to 30.  And I would either clarify that the DM can just not a role if they thought the untrained PC couldn't do the really hard thing, or should lower that DC where it happens.  Said I didn't like the auto-fail, but not as much since at least with advantage it wouldn't happen often.


----------

