# Wizards Presents Live Coverage



## darjr

Stream has gone live. Funny I got a TON of alerts for other channels doing a rebroadcast. One of them is hundreds of viewers already!


----------



## Abstruse

darjr said:


> Stream has gone live. Funny I got a TON of alerts for other channels doing a rebroadcast. One of them is hundreds of viewers already!



It's weird, Twitch is live but YouTube isn't scheduled to go for another almost 10 minutes.


----------



## darjr

Thousands of folks on youtube already! Oh! and they are using the new Spelljammer album? I think? The music is cool.


----------



## darjr

Abstruse said:


> It's weird, Twitch is live but YouTube isn't scheduled to go for another almost 10 minutes.



Already over a thousand watching on youtube! Waiting....


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Nerd Immersion's Announcement Bingo Card, for those who want to play along.


----------



## darjr

Lots of cool art being shown, how much is new?


----------



## Weiley31

Can't wait for that Spirit Halloween Crossover book!


----------



## darjr

Balrog art!


----------



## darjr

ONE  D&D?


----------



## overgeeked

One D&D?


----------



## darjr

D&D isn't an edition, it's just D&D.


----------



## Retreater

overgeeked said:


> One D&D?



My prediction: it's the VTT.


----------



## darjr

building on what is there.
Chris is focus on the D&D.


----------



## overgeeked

VTT.


----------



## darjr

Three pillars. 
Rules
D&D Beyond
D&D Digital


----------



## Ondath

I got the impression that they're calling D&D 5.5 One D&D.


----------



## overgeeked

Unreal VTT.


----------



## darjr

Tilt shift.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Shardstone

"1 D&D" tells me WotC is finally going all in on making D&D a lifestyle brand. This was the natural end point of D&D once it blew up in mainstream, because otherwise it would lose momentum and curtail (though still bring in big $$$).


----------



## darjr

Build your own dungeons and rebuild exiting ones.


----------



## darjr

Playtest in August!!!!


----------



## overgeeked

Unreal VTT “Lego” set.


----------



## darjr

Playtesting starts today!
Download the playtest now!








						FAQ: One D&D Rules, D&D Digital, and Physical + Digital Bundles
					

Learn about the future of Dungeons & Dragons and get answers to your most pressing questions in this comprehensive FAQ.




					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## overgeeked

August playtest.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Retreater

Well, that was a VTT and the new edition in one fell swoop.
Too bad it's on D&D Beyond. I hate that site.


----------



## eyeheartawk

So, it looks like the 2024 revision will likely be all about this integration and probably minimal rule changes. This really seems to be a focus.


----------



## rooneg

Looks like the first playtest packet is up later today.


----------



## Anthro78

Plus ca change, la meme chose...


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

They also mentioned that the DDB acquisition means they're looking at ways to enable combo-ing physical book sales with digital.


----------



## darjr

Who want's to form a group?


----------



## overgeeked

That’s disappointing. Playtest packets through D&D Beyond.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Well, I did not expect a lot of that.


----------



## rooneg

overgeeked said:


> That’s disappointing. Playtest through Beyond only.



The pages on Beyond are talking about PDFs though.


----------



## Abstruse

rooneg said:


> Looks like the first playtest packet is up later today.



Nope, it's Character Origins and it's live now. Though the poor servers are getting hammered.


----------



## Retreater

Yeah, that VTT is going to run like garbage on most systems. It's too graphics-intensive. 
Not to mention apparently they are going to be selling all the components piecemeal like collectible miniatures.
Not happy with this at all.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> They also mentioned that the DDB acquisition means they're looking at ways to enable combo-ing physical book sales with digital.



Yeah. I'm just wondering how they'll monetize it.  Do they charge extra for the actual digital written content, or do they give it away for free and make their money selling the virtual minis and and 3d maps separate for that content?

I'm leaning towards the later given how they've been selling virtual Magic cards for years pretty successfully.


----------



## darjr

Character Origins packet is now live on dndbeyond

OPE! No it's not, sorry.


----------



## Ondath

darjr said:


> Playtesting starts today!
> Download the playtest now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAQ: One D&D Rules, D&D Digital, and Physical + Digital Bundles
> 
> 
> Learn about the future of Dungeons & Dragons and get answers to your most pressing questions in this comprehensive FAQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dndbeyond.com



I claimed the playtest packet, but I didn't get anything besides the UA video. That's not the playtest _document_, is it?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Who want's to form a group?



Playtest here in a thread?


----------



## Knightfall

Watching.


----------



## Shardstone

Hasbro is so unfair. Who can keep up with a virtual tabletop using unreal engine 5, with every adventure coming with completed virtual dungeons for you to play with? The more they push their virtual space, the more people expect a virtual space, the fewer people bleed off to other products. It isn't bad that WotC is doing this for themselves, but this is going to keep widening the gap even more.


----------



## Parmandur

Abstruse said:


> Nope, it's Character Origins and it's live now. Though the poor servers are getting hammered.



12 PM PST.


----------



## darjr




----------



## rooneg

Ondath said:


> I claimed the playtest packet, but I didn't get anything besides the UA video. That's not the playtest _document_, is it?



It says at the bottom of the page that the PDF drops in a few hours.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Character Origins packet is now live on dndbeyond
> 
> OPE! No it's not, sorry.



Noon pacific.  I won't be able to get it until tomorrow.  It's game day today at 11am. Boo!


----------



## Parmandur

2023 is the "Year of Druzzt"


----------



## darjr

New book covers for all 39 Drizzt books.


----------



## darjr

I suspect a Drizzt movie.

Also Drizzt movie on webtoon?


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

eyeheartawk said:


> Yeah. I'm just wondering how they'll monetize it.  Do they charge extra for the actual digital written content, or do they give it away for free and make their money selling the virtual minis and and 3d maps separate for that content?
> 
> I'm leaning towards the later given how they've been selling virtual Magic cards for years pretty successfully.



To be sure - no real details as of yet. Just noting that the possibility of getting a free/discounted digital copy with a physical book purchase seems to be something they're working on.


----------



## Parmandur

Drizztfamily web comic!!! On my wife's favorite platform!!!


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Well, this will be very interesting to see what they are doing with races and backgrounds to balance them against the more recently released ones. Depending on how it looks, I might use the UA rules in my upcoming Spelljammer campaign.


----------



## darjr




----------



## overgeeked

Shardstone said:


> Hasbro is so unfair. Who can keep up with a virtual tabletop using unreal engine 5, with every adventure coming with completed virtual dungeons for you to play with? The more they push their virtual space, the more people expect a virtual space, the fewer people bleed off to other products. It isn't bad that WotC is doing this for themselves, but this is going to keep widening the gap even more.



And it’s not going to be free. Even further widening the divide.


----------



## Parmandur

Jer description of Univeres Beyond aounds like a post by @LuisCarlos17f


----------



## darjr




----------



## Remathilis

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> They also mentioned that the DDB acquisition means they're looking at ways to enable combo-ing physical book sales with digital.



Looks like buy it on Beyond, get a physical book mailed out. Good way to undercut Amazon, bad for FLGS...


----------



## overgeeked

WH40k Magic cards? WTF?


----------



## Weiley31

So, DND 2024 is now known by its name: One-DND.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> And it’s not going to be free. Even further widening the divide.



Free to play, probably, based on what they dropped before. Magic Arena style model.


----------



## darjr

Parmandur said:


> Jer description of Univeres Beyond aounds like a post by @LuisCarlos17f



We are all going to sound like @LuisCarlos17f in the future.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Balrog art! View attachment 258164



I can't believe that isn't copyright issues there...


----------



## Parmandur

Weiley31 said:


> So, DND 2024 is now known by its name: One-DND



Like the Xbox One....


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Playtest in August!!!!



that is what i was hoping.... this year right?


----------



## darjr

Doctor Who Magic?


----------



## Parmandur

Magic Doctor Who


----------



## Hurin88

I'm sure this was known before, but to confirm: no new edition of D&D, just some tweaks and additional books in 2024.


----------



## overgeeked

Lol. Doctor Who Magic, too. FFS.


----------



## Weiley31

Dr. (FLIPPING) Who!


----------



## darjr

Hurin88 said:


> I'm sure this was known before, but to confirm: no new edition of D&D, just some tweaks in 2024.



New books


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is what i was hoping.... this year right?



They made it pretty clear they are changing the style, not the rules. 5E continued.


----------



## overgeeked

The Doctor Who art looks good though.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

darjr said:


> Character Origins packet is now live on dndbeyond
> 
> OPE! No it's not, sorry.



It says it will be released at Noon PST.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can't believe that isn't copyright issues there...



It's part of a new Lord of the Rings MtG set.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Lol. Doctor Who Magic, too. FFS.



They already did Street Fighter, Fortnite, and the Walking Dead. That's just Msgic now.


----------



## Reynard

"Reimagining" of Dragonlance confirmed.


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr




----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> They already did Street Fighter, Fortnite, and the Walking Dead. That's just Msgic now.



Yeah, but this is something I care about being in Magic now. Love me some Doctor Who. Don’t care about the rest of those.


----------



## Reynard

Did they use midjourney for that alt cover?


----------



## overgeeked

The alt-cover is boss.


----------



## Weiley31

Dragonlance Alt Cover looks HOT!!!!!!


----------



## Shardstone

Dragonlance's new art is absolutely the best art in the edition so far barring Spelljammer.


----------



## Aldarc

*Nentir Vale confirmed! 

Edit: (not really) *


----------



## darjr




----------



## MonsterEnvy

Retreater said:


> Yeah, that VTT is going to run like garbage on most systems. It's too graphics-intensive.
> Not to mention apparently they are going to be selling all the components piecemeal like collectible miniatures.
> Not happy with this at all.



I think it will run fine. Quite happy.


----------



## Parmandur

Bundle includes D&D Beyond integration


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr

Japanese version of D&D. The Trailer is awesome!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> *Nentir Vale confirmed! *



Wait what?

I'm at a very boring party but can't leave, can you expand on that?


----------



## Parmandur

I love WotC Japanese commercials, see also their Magic ads


----------



## Remathilis

darjr said:


> Japanese version of D&D. The Trailer is awesome!



That is exactly what I want in my D&D commercial...


----------



## overgeeked

Ooh.

That’s next year’s books. Like it’s nothing. No hype. Just name drops. Yay for Planescape fans.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wait what?
> 
> I'm at a very boring party but can't leave, can you expand on that?



Yeah, where's that coming from?


----------



## Parmandur

@Henadic Theologian  entire year of releases unveiled!


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wait what?
> 
> I'm at a very boring party but can't leave, can you expand on that?



Sorry. It was my usual trolling in support of the Nentir Vale.


----------



## Remathilis

PLANESCAPE CONFIRMED!!!


----------



## eyeheartawk

Planescape!


----------



## Parmandur

Big by giants! Phandelver Campaign! PLLanescape confirned!confirmed!! Deck of Many Things!


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

PLANESCAPE CONFIRMED!!!


----------



## Reynard

That was a pretty casual way to drop PLANESCAPE!


----------



## darjr

Planescape!


----------



## Weiley31

Planescape, Phandelver, and Giants *OH MY!!!!*


----------



## darjr




----------



## Knightfall

PLANESCAPE!!!!!!!


----------



## eyeheartawk

I for sure thought they wouldn't touch Planescape since it's all about alignment and has some edgy stuff to it. Here's to hoping they don't file off all the interesting stuff about it.


----------



## rooneg

I mean, everything here sounds cool, but I'm particularly excited about the expanded Phandelver.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> PLANESCAPE CONFIRMED!!!



Yup. Horrible cheap-looking logo but hey it is straight-up Planescape not Manual of the Planes junk so there's some hope.


----------



## Weiley31

Playtest materials: Character Origins comes online on Beyond in 3 hours!


----------



## darjr

wow
 No Dominaria D&D book? .....


----------



## eyeheartawk

Looks like they're done talking about D&D.

Surprise for me, especially since dropping the titles of every 2024 release: no MtG D&D books. 

A very pleasant surprise.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

eyeheartawk said:


> I for sure thought they wouldn't touch Planescape since it's all about alignment and has some edgy stuff to it. Here's to hoping they don't file off all the interesting stuff about it.



I mean, it's not actually edgy, but it took some mild risks, and talked about philosophy, so let's hope that stays. I am pretty worried, like 7/10 skeptical, but I've been proven wrong before (though right too, and I don't want to be right!).


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Book of Many Things is a Xanathar's/Tasha's sort of book, I suppose. It's interesting because I would presume a lot of that kind of stuff (the DM-facing stuff anyway) will be incorporated into a revised DMG in 2024.


----------



## overgeeked

eyeheartawk said:


> I for sure thought they wouldn't touch Planescape since it's all about alignment and has some edgy stuff to it. Here's to hoping they don't file off all the interesting stuff about it.



More than likely they will. It’s their MO.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> wow
> No Dominaria D&D book? .....



Actually surprised


----------



## Weiley31

So, will there be a Dragonlance Deluxe Edition that comes WITH the Alt Cover?


----------



## darjr

One more thing....


----------



## ehren37

D&D Beyond works great as a character tracker/builder, but is AWFUL for actually running a game. You have one space for public notes, one space for private notes. THAT'S it. No ability to set up NPC shops even. The VTT looks neat, but they need to expand the basic functionality ASAP.


----------



## eyeheartawk

ehren37 said:


> D&D Beyond works great as a character tracker/builder, but is AWFUL for actually running a game. You have one space for public notes, one space for private notes. THAT'S it. No ability to set up NPC shops even. The VTT looks neat, but they need to expand the basic functionality ASAP.



I personally don't use D&D Beyond right now and have been pretty skeptical of it in the past, but I'm sure by 2024 that will all be fixed.


----------



## ersatzphil

Weiley31 said:


> So, will there be a Dragonlance Deluxe Edition that comes WITH the Alt Cover?



Winninger mentioned on twitter that there would be a bundle of the book and the board game; no idea about an alt cover version.


----------



## overgeeked

It’s supposed to last an hour. So there could be more D&D stuff.

LOL. Or not.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> Playtesting starts today!
> Download the playtest now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAQ: One D&D Rules, D&D Digital, and Physical + Digital Bundles
> 
> 
> Learn about the future of Dungeons & Dragons and get answers to your most pressing questions in this comprehensive FAQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dndbeyond.com



Note by "download now", they appear to actually mean download in 2.5 hrs, because the material will become available today at 18.00 PST which ism't yet.


----------



## Aldarc

This edition has published books for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. And people think that they aren't catering to grognards? 

(But no Nentir Vale because 4e fans don't matter. )


----------



## Parmandur

Wilds of Wldraine!


----------



## Parmandur

ersatzphil said:


> Winninger mentioned on twitter that there would be a bundle of the book and the board game; no idea about an alt cover version.



Looks like that bundle includes Beyond integration


----------



## Reynard

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Book of Many Things is a Xanathar's/Tasha's sort of book, I suppose. It's interesting because I would presume a lot of that kind of stuff (the DM-facing stuff anyway) will be incorporated into a revised DMG in 2024.



They said the DMG is getting revised to be more new player friendly so maybe Deck is advanced topics.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> WH40k Magic cards? WTF?



Kind of hilariously circular given my first D&D books were bought from a Games Workshop store in 1989.


----------



## darjr

6 thousand on youtube, 3 thousand on twitch and several other channels rebroadcasting with some having thousands of viewers each. Wow!


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> They said the DMG is getting revised to be more new player friendly so maybe Deck is advanced topics.



Let's hope that means putting the creature by CR table where it belongs in the MM and putting actual useful indexes in the books.


----------



## Nikosandros

Parmandur said:


> Looks like that bundle includes Beyond integration



Yes, if you order through the newly online D&D Web Store. And they also ship to the EU.


----------



## el-remmen

darjr said:


>




This video made me realize that I thought Todd Kendrick and Jeremy Crawford were the same person. Are they twins?


----------



## Weiley31

Well I wanted to get the bundle. But if the Alt is only seperate, then that means I'll just get Warriors of Krynn seperately.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Reynard said:


> They said the DMG is getting revised to be more new player friendly so maybe Deck is advanced topics.



I think the current DMG is pretty good, although it does perhaps assume you have a basic understanding of what you're doing. Something that teaches new DMs would be great. I wish they would get someone like Justin Alexander in as a consultant to write about scenario structures and enabling player agency.


----------



## Shardstone

+2/+1 is now from your custom background.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think its gonna be a good year.

and Soth is my new man-crush. I root for the bad guys now, sorry Tanis Brood-in-Elvish.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> It’s supposed to last an hour. So there could be more D&D stuff.
> 
> LOL. Or not.



Announcements are done, the rest is a deep dive on the next Magic Set. Watching the Unearthed Arcana video now. The first packet is about Race, Background and Background Feats:


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Shardstone said:


> +2/+1 is now from your custom background.



Where did you see this? (oh, in the video?)


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Shardstone said:


> +2/+1 is now from your custom background.



Tell me its not a joke, please, I need it!


----------



## Shardstone

Not a joke, its in the UA video.


----------



## RFB Dan

Aldarc said:


> This edition has published books for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. And people think that they aren't catering to grognards?
> 
> (But no Nentir Vale because 4e fans don't matter. )



I am mostly a 2e or 5e guy but I would love me a Nentir Vale setting book.


----------



## Zaukrie

darjr said:


> 6 thousand on youtube, 3 thousand on twitch and several other channels rebroadcasting with some having thousands of viewers each. Wow!



Insane, really. The game is so very popular, it's hard to believe.


----------



## Shardstone

Dwarves have tremorsense, three different kinds of tieflings, biracial species now pick one parent to use their racial abilities, level one feats, all feats have a level associated with it, and Ardlings replace Aasimar.


----------



## ehren37

eyeheartawk said:


> I personally don't use D&D Beyond right now and have been pretty skeptical of it in the past, but I'm sure by 2024 that will all be fixed.



I know by 2024. But if they want people to test on it now, it needs to have the bare minimum of tools to let people run on it. Otherwise people are going to log on, think it's terrible for running (which it is) and bounce. This stuff should not be absent this far into its life cycle.


----------



## Zaukrie

Oddly, I almost always prefer the normal cover. Much more focus on the action.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Ok, I'm hugely stoked about next year's books! Giants and Planescape are two of my favorites.


----------



## darjr

Zaukrie said:


> Insane, really. The game is so very popular, it's hard to believe.



And after the D&D announcment they all dropped in viewers a ton. Probably because they are getting into the woods on magic but in my head I'm saying it's because all the D&D folk dropped off.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> They made it pretty clear they are changing the style, not the rules. 5E continued.



if they add new things (like a complex warrior) that may hold us... but this is looking bad for my group that was hopeing for 6e... but 1 of my players has already said this sounds like the 4e announcement "the game will remain the same" he meant it in a bad way but that reassured some of us.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> This edition has published books for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. And people think that they aren't catering to grognards?
> 
> (But no Nentir Vale because 4e fans don't matter. )



To be fair this is a recent direction change, how much of it is after Winninger took over? Most of it I think.


----------



## Abstruse

Arglebargleblarg that was hell. Can someone ask the hosts to take a breath between products so I can type when announcing an entire year's release schedule?


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair this is a recent direction change, how much of it is after Winninger took over? Most of it I think.



Probably a 2e fan.


----------



## Charles Rampant

Doing a campaign setting expanding on the Starter Set is both kind of a weird surprise option, but also incredibly _obvious_ in hindsight. I always liked the _vibe _of the material in that set - it's got a comfortable fantasy vibe, not crazy high fantasy but not grungy dark/low fantasy, instead kind of generic 80s novel fantasy, and I can't be the only person who likes that as a generic option.


----------



## Abstruse

And it wasn't even the entire release schedule!


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Charles Rampant said:


> Doing a campaign setting expanding on the Starter Set is both kind of a weird surprise option, but also incredibly _obvious_ in hindsight. I always liked the _vibe _of the material in that set - it's got a comfortable fantasy vibe, not crazy high fantasy but not grungy dark/low fantasy, instead kind of generic 80s novel fantasy, and I can't be the only person who likes that as a generic option.



I've played both the Starter Set and the Essentials Kit adventures one-on-one with my 10 year old, and I think the tone works well for that. Not too edgy or complex, like you said kind of a comfortable generic fantasy vibe.


----------



## Rhineglade

Kind of a giant "meh" all around from me for all of these news releases.  The Phandelver campaign might be interesting but if I have one more game in the overly used Forgotten Realms I am going to spit up.


----------



## Aldarc

The talk about dwarves being the "dwarfiest dwarf" and elves being the "elviest elf" sounds like they are leaning even harder into race essentialism. Not sure if that's the message that they want to communicate.


----------



## darjr

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> I've played both the Starter Set and the Essentials Kit adventures one-on-one with my 10 year old, and I think the tone works well for that. Not too edgy or complex, like you said kind of a comfortable generic fantasy vibe.



I can say there are plans. The new starter set is great and will be iconic before all the dust settles.


----------



## Reynard

Abstruse said:


> And it wasn't even the entire release schedule!



I wonder if the heists from the Keys book will be as much like actual heists as the "mysteries" were mysteries in Candlekeep...


----------



## Nikosandros

Parmandur said:


> @Henadic Theologian  entire year of releases unveiled!



Ah! So,  just for once, I was right!


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Shardstone said:


> +2/+1 is now from your custom background.



I would not have a problem with that if there was an expanded selection of racial traits to pick from.


----------



## Reynard

Aldarc said:


> The talk about dwarves being the "dwarfiest dwarf" and elves being the "elviest elf" sounds like they are leaning even harder into race essentialism. Not sure if that's the message that they want to communicate.



Good. if archetypes aren't archetypal, they aren't very useful.


----------



## Zaukrie

My one hope, as I don't expect huge changes, is that monsters get more interesting and diverse actions. I doubt it, it's why I prefer 3rd party monster books....


----------



## eyeheartawk

Rhineglade said:


> Kind of a giant "meh" all around from me for all of these news releases.  The Phandelver campaign might be interesting but if I have one more game in the overly used Forgotten Realms I am going to spit up.



Just remember


----------



## dave2008

Very cool stuff, unfortunately I have to get back to work


----------



## Kurotowa

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Tell me its not a joke, please, I need it!



I'm part way through the video, but the way he's describing it is that 1) assigning your +2/+1 is now part of the Background phase of character creation, and 2) custom Backgrounds are now presented as the default, although they'll still be offering a selection of pre-made Backgrounds (that follow the custom rules).

The pre-made Backgrounds will include where the +2/+1 go, but they are explicitly examples and not hard coded.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

What is the ''Keys from the Golden Vault'' ?


----------



## Aldarc

Reynard said:


> Good. if archetypes aren't archetypal, they aren't very useful.



I prefer that classes are archetypal rather than peoples.


----------



## Parmandur

Orcs in the PHB, using the rules from MotM, replacing Half-Orcs.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Tales and Chronicles said:


> What is the ''Keys from the Golden Vault'' ?



It's an anthology of short "heist" adventures.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> Probably a 2e fan.



Given his age and when he was working on RPGs as an author/designer? I'd guess he was probably more of a 1E player but I don't know - he may well also have been a fan of what 2E was doing. Like Winninger worked on Underground which came out in 1993 and was basically a pretty wild/outre reaction/criticism of superhero stuff, American imperialism and corporate capitalism (no comment on how you then end up high up in a corporate entity lol). I can imagine he might have liked Planescape and Dark Sun for sure though.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> New book covers for all 39 Drizzt books.



I think I gave up after reading like 7-10(can't remember).


----------



## Shardstone

I'll be honest.

I really, really, really hate their new approach to biracial characters. The fact that you have to choose one race or the other and then reskin is not only mediocre, but it really makes the mixed experience seem weird. You either choose to be orc or human, its like saying I have to choose being either black or white. I dunno, I much prefer PF2E's method.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Orcs in the PHB, using the rules from MotM, replacing Half-Orcs.



wow already taking things away when they said they are only adding...


----------



## Scribe

Shardstone said:


> +2/+1 is now from your custom background.



Meh, at least it's tied to a choice?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> View attachment 258196



That looks like something I'd buy and try.


----------



## darjr

Finally! Orcs. Half-Orcs were a solution to the problem of older editions and players playing “monsters” and ALL orcs being bad.


----------



## Scribe

Shardstone said:


> three different kinds of tieflings, biracial species now pick one parent to use their racial abilities, level one feats, all feats have a level associated with it, and Ardlings replace Aasimar.



What? Tiefling and Aasimar clarification plz.


----------



## Shardstone

Scribe said:


> Meh, at least it's tied to a choice?



Not really, you just put it w/e you want to put it.


----------



## Kurotowa

Parmandur said:


> Orcs in the PHB, using the rules from MotM, replacing Half-Orcs.



I wouldn't be surprised if Half-Elves are cut too. They were bland to begin with, and now you can use the general purpose "mixed ancestry" guidelines instead. Which cover all the _other_ options besides Elf/Human mixes.


----------



## Von Corellon

darjr said:


> Character Origins packet is now live on dndbeyond
> 
> OPE! No it's not, sorry.



3pm EST/12pm PST


----------



## Parmandur

Scribe said:


> What? Tiefling and Aasimar clarification plz.



There is a new Celestial Rave, Ardlings. Both Ardlings and tieflings get to choose which Plane they are descended from.


----------



## Shardstone

Spel llists are now Arcane, Divine, and Primal.


----------



## Parmandur

Kurotowa said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Half-Elves are cut too. They were bland to begin with, and now you can use the general purpose "mixed ancestry" guidelines instead. Which cover all the _other_ options besides Elf/Human mixes.



They are, Half-Elf is just an Elf or a Hunan refluffed. You can be a Gnome-Halfling, but you choose which single Race provides game stats.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> wow already taking things away when they said they are only adding...



I mean, they are still using the Orc stats currently in print.


----------



## Scribe

Shardstone said:


> Not really, you just put it w/e you want to put it.



Oh, so as lame as it's been since Tasha's.


----------



## Shardstone

Classes will leverage these new lists in some way (but will not be strictly _limited_ to spells on a single list)


----------



## Maxperson

eyeheartawk said:


> I for sure thought they wouldn't touch Planescape since it's all about alignment and has some edgy stuff to it. Here's to hoping they don't file off all the interesting stuff about it.



If they give it the Spelljammer treatment, they'll tell you that there are planes, give 3 pages for Sigil, a book with a few monsters, some vague adventures and call it a day.


----------



## darjr

@Abstruse this was awesome! Thank you!


----------



## eyeheartawk

Maxperson said:


> If they give it the Spelljammer treatment, they'll tell you that there are planes, give 3 pages for Sigil, a book with a few monsters, some vague adventures and call it a day.



You know what else they'll have in common? Neither book actually tells you about the Spelljammer.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Shardstone said:


> Spel llists are now Arcane, Divine, and Primal.



God, it just keep getting better.

Its a like second wind: I regained 1d10+32 desire-to-play-5e-points!


----------



## Demetrios1453

So, getting way ahead of myself, now that we have a giants book following Fizban's, what group will be next, assuming they continue the series? Aberrations? Fey? Fiends?

I'm so glad they're doing this book. I wasn't happy how such a large and varied group as giants were stuffed into Volo's, and thought the variants in that book were just too esoteric; so much so that I created dozens of variants and posted them here! They also missed on giant-kin and giant-adjacent monsters like ogres and trolls. It will be nice to see giants get the full Fizban's treatment...


----------



## DarkCrisis

Dragonlance will be a good example for how the 5th ed version of Planescape will be "updated".


----------



## FitzTheRuke

That's IT, I'm playing a quarterling! (A half-halfing!)


----------



## DataDwarf

How they are describing Character "Origins" sounds a lot like what EN Publishing did with Heritages/Cultures/Backgrounds in A5E


----------



## Thaumaturge

Listening to the play test video gives an indication of how they're going to talk about D&D moving forward. Jeremy Crawford isn't talking about the "5th edition Player's Handbook" he's talking about the "2014 Player's Handbook". 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Scribe

Parmandur said:


> There is a new Celestial Rave, Ardlings. Both Ardlings and tieflings get to choose which Plane they are descended from.



I'm going to have to see this. My gut reaction is unpleasant, but it seems Tiefling may be improved at least?


----------



## Zaukrie

Shardstone said:


> Spel llists are now Arcane, Divine, and Primal.



Great change


----------



## Demetrios1453

Shardstone said:


> Spel llists are now Arcane, Divine, and Primal.



Lol, there was a huge, argumentative thread here a couple of weeks ago about whether 5e had any real difference between Arcane and Divine magic. Well, that puts that to rest conclusively...


----------



## MarkB

Thaumaturge said:


> Listening to the play test video gives an indication of how they're going to talk about D&D moving forward. Jeremy Crawford isn't talking about the "5th edition Player's Handbook" he's talking about the "2014 Player's Handbook".
> 
> Thaumaturge.



Given that they're doing revised versions of the core books, that becomes a meaningful distinction. There won't be just one 5e Players Handbook.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Shardstone said:


> Spel llists are now Arcane, Divine, and Primal.



oh now that MAY fix somethings... espicially if bards are arcane and can heal...

now if we could get MARTIAL abilities.


----------



## Shardstone

You get inspiration on any nat 20 now. One at a time, can give it to someone else. Humans get inspo when finishing a long rest.


----------



## Parmandur

Hill Dwarves and Mointain Dwarves being rolled together, different Elves still in. Background system allows for cultural differences.


----------



## The Glen

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's IT, I'm playing a quarterling! (A half-halfing!)



That was actually a thing once a long time ago


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Kurotowa said:


> I'm part way through the video, but the way he's describing it is that 1) assigning your +2/+1 is now part of the Background phase of character creation, and 2) custom Backgrounds are now presented as the default, although they'll still be offering a selection of pre-made Backgrounds (that follow the custom rules).
> 
> The pre-made Backgrounds will include where the +2/+1 go, but they are explicitly examples and not hard coded.



I guess if it's flexible it's fine, otherwise it feels like backgrounds get locked to classes, the same way that races were supposedly locked to classes.


----------



## Scribe

Parmandur said:


> Hill Dwarves and Mointain Dwarves being rolled together, different Elves still in. Background system allows for cultural differences.



Is this from the UA?


----------



## ehren37

Aldarc said:


> I prefer that classes are archetypal rather than peoples.



What's the point of culture, heritage and ancestry if you remove all shared aspects? "Everyone is exactly the same" is pretty damn dull. You also can't play against type if you refuse for thereto be a type.


----------



## Parmandur

Confirmed that Monsters of the Multiverse options are designed to play with these options directly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MarkB said:


> Given that they're doing revised versions of the core books, that becomes a meaningful distinction. There won't be just one 5e Players Handbook.



that is going to cause weird issues... I hope they see them coming


----------



## Parmandur

Scribe said:


> Is this from the UA?



Just what Crawford said so far. Elves are still distinct because they are magical differences rather than cultural, unlike Dwarves and Duergar which are magically based.


----------



## Shardstone

Attack roll crits will be limited to attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike. Spells will no longer trigger crits. Emphasis on this being _playtest_ to see if this better carves out a space for weapon-based characters.

Crits will be limited to the _weapon_ dice, so any bonus dice may not be doubled.

Crits will also be limited to players only. Parallels are drawn to a monster's recharge mechanic, so we may see a re-emphasis on recharge-based abilities.

Nat 1 and Nat 20s will now be an auto success/failure for ability checks and saving throws, since so many groups already homebrew this.


----------



## el-remmen

Are these starting feats as part of backgrounds with levels attached mean they are gonna re-do and re-balance all the feats? Lord, I hope so. Because feats as written won't work - at least not for me.


----------



## ehren37

Shardstone said:


> I'll be honest.
> 
> I really, really, really hate their new approach to biracial characters. The fact that you have to choose one race or the other and then reskin is not only mediocre, but it really makes the mixed experience seem weird. You either choose to be orc or human, its like saying I have to choose being either black or white. I dunno, I much prefer PF2E's method.



I mean, orcs and humans are actually different species, not different ethnicities (which is a social construct).


----------



## Shardstone

el-remmen said:


> Are these starting feats as part of backgrounds with levels attached mean they are gonna re-do and re-balance all the feats? Lord, I hope so. Because feats as written won't work - at least not for me.



Yep, Alert feat is redone, you can swap your initiative w/ someone else and you get an initiatve bonus.


----------



## Shardstone

ehren37 said:


> I mean, orcs and humans are actually different species, not different ethnicities (which is a social construct).



Missing the forests for the trees here man.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ehren37 said:


> I mean, orcs and humans are actually different species, not different ethnicities (which is a social construct).



I mean, one of the factors which defines a species is that it can't interbreed or that if it can, the offspring are sterile.

But Half-Orcs and Half-Elves (and so on) are not. So... are they separate species? My vote is yes they are but it's quite a thing.


----------



## Aldarc

Demetrios1453 said:


> Lol, there was a huge, argumentative thread here a couple of weeks ago about whether 5e had any real difference between Arcane and Divine magic. Well, that puts that to rest conclusively...



This idea was something in 4e D&D as well as Pathfinder 2 that I am thrilled to see in One D&D.


----------



## el-remmen

Shardstone said:


> Crits will also be limited to players only.



The DM can only crit the players' characters. . .? well, okay, if people really want that I'll play along. . .


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Shardstone said:


> Yep, Alert feat is redone, you can swap your initiative w/ someone else and you get an initiatve bonus.



Yeah this sort of change is huge and a big improvement. Sounds like they're adding a lot more Feats and improving lots of others too.


----------



## Shardstone

You guys realize that this new spell list ideas means we're going to get a Psionic Spell List one day, right?


----------



## Aldarc

Shardstone said:


> You guys realize that this new spell list ideas means we're going to get a Psionic Spell List one day, right?



So I hope.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

Shardstone said:


> Nat 1 and Nat 20s will now be an auto success/failure for ability checks and saving throws, since so many groups already homebrew this.



First homebrew rule for me will be to remove this. "I seduce the lich." "You can't..." "I got a crit!"


----------



## Zaukrie

Shardstone said:


> Attack roll crits will be limited to attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike. Spells will no longer trigger crits. Emphasis on this being _playtest_ to see if this better carves out a space for weapon-based characters.
> 
> Crits will be limited to the _weapon_ dice, so any bonus dice may not be doubled.
> 
> Crits will also be limited to players only. Parallels are drawn to a monster's recharge mechanic, so we may see a re-emphasis on recharge-based abilities.
> 
> Nat 1 and Nat 20s will now be an auto success/failure for ability checks and saving throws, since so many groups already homebrew this.



No crits for monsters? Sigh. Yuck. Seriously, monsters are boring and predictable as it is.


----------



## coyote6

Shardstone said:


> Yep, Alert feat is redone, you can swap your initiative w/ someone else and you get an initiatve bonus.



This is schtick, right?


----------



## DarkCrisis

"We are playing OD&D."

"Original D&D, sweet!"

"No, it's One D&D."

"Ah. Can't wait for AD&D."


----------



## ehren37

They need to remove the penalties for being small, since it seems several races can choose to be small or medium. There's no advantage for it, so lets ditch the thing that disallows heavy weapons (which only impact a select few builds anyways). If someone wants to be a halfling barbarian great weapon master, let em. It's not like a halfling hitting someone with a longsword deals less damage.


----------



## Shardstone

coyote6 said:


> This is schtick, right?



I don't know what you're asking.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Shardstone said:


> Attack roll crits will be limited to attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike. Spells will no longer trigger crits. Emphasis on this being _playtest_ to see if this better carves out a space for weapon-based characters.
> 
> Crits will be limited to the _weapon_ dice, so any bonus dice may not be doubled.



This seems sort of confused lol. Make crits weapons only, okay, makes sense. Then make crits do way less damage and make it so there's no reason to care about them really. Like, pick a lane lol.

I get that it's playtest but wow come on. Maybe they just need to bring back crit multipliers and crit chance differences on weapons.

Oh wow they brought back Arcane/Divine/Primal as spell types/lists. That is BIG. Forget Mike Shea lol.


----------



## Shardstone

First level feat confirmed. Feats will "have a level" just like class features, broken up into various groups based on levels. "First-level" feats don't include a +1 ASI, but some higher level fears will. Premade backgrounds come with pre-selected feats. Sailor gets Tavern Brawler, Criminal gets Alert are two examples. Alert confirmed to have 'new functionality'. New backgrounds, too! Including stuff like 'cultist' or 'pilgrim'. I wonder if we'll get more background features to do the whole 'build-a-background' thing? Here's hoping.

- By the way, I get all this from a guy on reddit. Thanks u/SomewhatMystia!


----------



## Mezuka

I'm only interested in Warriors of Krynn.


----------



## ehren37

Zaukrie said:


> No crits for monsters? Sigh. Yuck. Seriously, monsters are boring and predictable as it is.



Jesus, just let the players narrate how they win at this point. 5E combat by and large sucks as written using the sadsack critters in the monster manual.


----------



## Scribe

ehren37 said:


> They need to remove the penalties for being small, since it seems several races can choose to be small or medium. There's no advantage for it, so lets ditch the thing that disallows heavy weapons (which only impact a select few builds anyways). If someone wants to be a halfling barbarian great weapon master, let em. It's not like a halfling hitting someone with a longsword deals less damage.



Yeah no thanks. I'd like to see benefits for being small, restrictions, limitations.

Distinction.


----------



## reelo

ehren37 said:


> I mean, orcs and humans are actually different species, not different ethnicities (which is a social construct).



Are you saying that the differences between, say, a Scandinavian and a Polynesian islander are just a social construct?


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Scribe said:


> I'm going to have to see this. My gut reaction is unpleasant, but it seems Tiefling may be improved at least?



The implication from what I've heard thus far (still watching through the video) is that Ardlings are a more "bestial" variation on the "celestial planetouched" thing, letting people play up ties to celestials like hound archons, guardinals, asuras, and some eladrin whatever the CG celestials are now.

They're not replacing Aasimar outright, so much as Aasimar are being more strictly tied to "angel planetouched", which is essentially how 5e has  always treated them anyway, while Ardling is picking up the broader celestial panoply and getting the "choose your planar origin" thing mirroring what they're doing with Tiefling.


----------



## rooneg

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> First homebrew rule for me will be to remove this. "I seduce the lich." "You can't..." "I got a crit!"



I mean, if it's not possible you just don't let them roll the skill check.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I have to say I'm not keen on the name "One D&D" lol because like, everything I've ever come across where it was "One X" has been politics related and er... BAD. But I think that's just what happens when things to focus-grouped and corporate and people don't apply common sense but I guess we'll see. RPG Twitter is going to be hilarious tonight.


----------



## ehren37

Shardstone said:


> You guys realize that this new spell list ideas means we're going to get a Psionic Spell List one day, right?



Now they just need to add Occult! And steal PF 2's 3 action economy. (not kidding on either)


----------



## Zaukrie

Ruin Explorer said:


> This seems sort of confused lol. Make crits weapons only, okay, makes sense. Then make crits do way less damage and make it so there's no reason to care about them really. Like, pick a lane lol.
> 
> I get that it's playtest but wow come on. Maybe they just need to bring back crit multipliers and crit chance differences on weapons.
> 
> Oh wow they brought back Arcane/Divine/Primal as spell types/lists. That is BIG. Forget Mike Shea lol.



Players love big, giant, crit bonuses. A crit that doesn't do much is not worth even having rules for.


----------



## Shardstone

I feel that if spells can't crit, we should drop spell attacks, since its now no different in purpose to a saving throw.


----------



## darjr

So we can stay in topic about announcements.









						5.5E - First playtest thread! One D&D
					

For the first playtest talks.




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> The implication from what I've heard thus far (still watching through the video) is that Ardlings are a more "beastial" variation on the "celestial planetouched" thing, letting people play up ties to celestials like hound archons, guardials, asuras, and some eladrinwhatever the CG celestials are now.
> 
> They're not replacing Aasimar outright, so much as Aasimar are being more strictly tied to "angel planetouched" and Ardling is picking up the broader celestial panoply and getting the "choose your planar origin" thing mirroring what they're doing with Tiefling.



Yeah as soon as they mentioned them, I though "Oh they're going to go for all the other upper-planes stuff!". Maybe if we're VERY lucky they're retcon Angels back to NOT being strictly Good, and just to being messengers/servants of the gods.

One of the dumbest/worst lore fails of 5E (which had pretty few outright lore fails imho) was that Angels were solely the servants of Good gods, which left Neutral and Evil ones with no real inherent servants because Devils/Demons explicitly weren't that. Just a total mismatch with the cosmology.

Oh wow auto-get Inspiration point if you roll a 20 lol.


----------



## Zaukrie

Shardstone said:


> I feel that if spells can't crit, we should drop spell attacks, since its now no different in purpose to a saving throw.



People like spell attacks because they are rolling, not the DM. I'd like more. A miss could do half damage, for example, like a successful save.


----------



## Parmandur

Shardstone said:


> You guys realize that this new spell list ideas means we're going to get a Psionic Spell List one day, right?



Actually. This might make it harder. Because the appellation is written in the Spell description.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

rooneg said:


> I mean, if it's not possible you just don't let them roll the skill check.



Players hate that, though, and then there's an argument wasting time at the table.


----------



## Shardstone

Zaukrie said:


> People like spell attacks because they are rolling, not the DM. I'd like more. A miss could do half damage, for example, like a successful save.



This is true, but now it seems confusing to me. By making them exactly the same, we might as well just take out saving throws then. Weird.


----------



## Zaukrie

Shardstone said:


> This is true, but now it seems confusing to me. By making them exactly the same, we might as well just take out saving throws then. Weird.



I agree, but people like to roll their saves! It's a conundrum for sure.


----------



## ehren37

Shardstone said:


> This is true, but now it seems confusing to me. By making them exactly the same, we might as well just take out saving throws then. Weird.



Hey, maybe we could add like an AC... but for saves. Something like Fortitude, Reflex, and Will?

As opposed to having Intelligence saves, which was used a grand total of 4 times in the history of 5E lol.


----------



## MarkB

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Players hate that, though, and then there's an argument wasting time at the table.



If you're going to let them roll, and then have it fail when they roll a natural 20, you're already wasting their time.


----------



## Zaukrie

ehren37 said:


> Hey, maybe we could add like an AC... but for saves. Something like Fortitude, Reflex, and Will?
> 
> As opposed to having Intelligence saves, which was used a grand total of 4 times in the history of 5E lol.



4e had great ideas....


----------



## darjr




----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

MarkB said:


> If you're going to let them roll, and then have it fail when they roll a natural 20, you're already wasting their time.



As the DM I don't always know a priori if their bonus would allow them to hit DC 25 or DC 30. If natural 20 automatically succeeds, now I can't just set a DC but I have to consider each and every time whether or not the PC's bonus would make it possible to succeed and disallow the roll if not.


----------



## Retreater

I was able to watch only about 5 minutes. I can't believe anybody being "meh" about it. It's the biggest news in our hobby in close to a decade.
I can get liking it or hating it (I think I'm in the latter), but I can't understand ambivalence.


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah as soon as they mentioned them, I though "Oh they're going to go for all the other upper-planes stuff!". Maybe if we're VERY lucky they're retcon Angels back to NOT being strictly Good, and just to being messengers/servants of the gods.
> 
> One of the dumbest/worst lore fails of 5E (which had pretty few outright lore fails imho) was that Angels were solely the servants of Good gods, which left Neutral and Evil ones with no real inherent servants because Devils/Demons explicitly weren't that. Just a total mismatch with the cosmology.
> 
> Oh wow auto-get Inspiration point if you roll a 20 lol.



Making Angels/Aasimon the servants of the gods independent of alignment is one of the changes from 4e that I do really like, so I wouldn't complain if they brought that back in somewhat.


----------



## R_J_K75

Remathilis said:


> Looks like buy it on Beyond, get a physical book mailed out. Good way to undercut Amazon, bad for FLGS...




Depends on the price. I have little interest in their VTT or books on D&D Beyond, so I'm not paying full MSRP on Beyond just for a digital copy and physical copy unless its comparatively priced with Amazon. Local game stores will survive if they adapt, its the strores that strictly sell game material that will probably suffer the most. Ones that sell comics, used video games, movies and other merchandise will be just fine. But honestly in my city game stores open quite regularly and close usually within a year or two.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Actually. This might make it harder. Because the appellation is written in the Spell description.



This is why I would suggest that they don't put the appellation in the Spell description. It's not needed. It just needs to be on the spell list. The game can become more "evergreen" if they leave that space open.


----------



## Scribe

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> The implication from what I've heard thus far (still watching through the video) is that Ardlings are a more "beastial" variation on the "celestial planetouched" thing, letting people play up ties to celestials like hound archons, guardinals, asuras, and some eladrin whatever the CG celestials are now.
> 
> They're not replacing Aasimar outright, so much as Aasimar are being more strictly tied to "angel planetouched", while Ardling is picking up the broader celestial panoply and getting the "choose your planar origin" thing mirroring what they're doing with Tiefling.



Ah OK, thank you.


----------



## MarkB

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> As the DM I don't always know a priori if their bonus would allow them to hit DC 25 or DC 30. If natural 20 automatically succeeds, now I can't just set a DC but I have to consider each and every time whether or not the PC's bonus would make it possible to succeed and disallow the roll if not.



If a natural 20 is an automatic success, then it doesn't matter whether they could hit the DC. On a natural 20, they did hit it.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

It's good that they have spell lists for Arcane, Divine and Primal. I certainly want there to be a Psionic spell list, but that's likely not going to happen in revised core books, even if they make a Psion Base class later.

I'm not big on Ardlings being different from Aasimar, unless they find a way to define both of them differently. It's good that Guardinals have been brought up though.

Tieflings having 3 options is a good start, but Chthonic is pronounced thon'nik as in the "c" is silent.


----------



## Mistwell

The Musician feat he mentions sounds...bad.

Nobody cares about proficiency with three instruments. That's a ribbon/flavor element of a rule. It's something which already could have been done with downtime activities at no real expenditure of limited resources. If they'd granted proficiency with all musical instruments, that would have made virtually no difference 99% of the time. 

If that Musician feat realistically just lets you give inspiration to a number of people equal to your proficiency once a day, it's so underpowered nobody will choose it. Who would want that over Alertness or the new Healer or the new Adapt feats?


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

MarkB said:


> If a natural 20 is an automatic success, then it doesn't matter whether they could hit the DC. On a natural 20, they did hit it.



Let's say there is a magical lock, imbued with ever-changing cylinders from the plane of Limbo itself. The DC to pick this lock is 35. Could a level 20 rogue pick this lock? Yes, with luck. Should I allow a level 1 fighter who found some lockpicks a roll?


----------



## Demetrios1453

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's good that they have spell lists for Arcane, Divine and Primal. I certainly want there to be a Psionic spell list, but that's likely not going to happen in revised core books, even if they make a Psion Base class later.
> 
> I'm not big on Ardlings being different from Aasimar, unless they find a way to define both of them differently. It's good that Guardinals have been brought up though.
> 
> Tieflings having 3 options is a good start, but Chthonic is pronounced thon'nik as in the "c" is silent.



Wait, they brought up guardinals? I'm guessing Celestials will finally get some love (although that was probably a lock with the Planescape announcement).


----------



## SkidAce

Shardstone said:


> Dwarves have tremorsense, three different kinds of tieflings, biracial species now pick one parent to use their racial abilities, level one feats, all feats have a level associated with it, and Ardlings replace Aasimar.



I don't think Ardlings replace Aasimar.  Sounded like they are a player character archon type lineage (anthropomorphic).


----------



## darjr

In the playtest thread I've added a full transcript of the video in the spoiler block. See the OP.









						5.5E - First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.
					

For the first playtest talks. Character Origins.    Get the playtest here.  https://www.dndbeyond.com/claim/source/one-dnd  See the spoiler block for the transcript




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Sacrosanct

MarkB said:


> If a natural 20 is an automatic success, then it doesn't matter whether they could hit the DC. On a natural 20, they did hit it.



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.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Zaukrie said:


> No crits for monsters? Sigh. Yuck. Seriously, monsters are boring and predictable as it is.



Ah but you miss that this means that ALL (or nearly all) monsters should get a special ability that uses the recharge mechanic. I plan to give them ALL one, myself. I find that more interesting anyway.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I'm OK with removing crit damage for monsters, but instead of relying on recharge stuff, I'd rather have monster crits do something else.  That way they aren't deadly like a monster crit on a low level PC, but still have an effect.

For example, if a monster crits, a negative effect is imposed on the PCs.  Disadvantage on the next roll, reduced movement, etc.  Something that reflects the devasting effect of a nat 20, but doesn't automatically kill a low level PC in one hit.


----------



## DEFCON 1

FitzTheRuke said:


> Ah but you miss that this means that ALL (or nearly all) monsters should get a special ability that uses the recharge mechanic. I plan to give them ALL one, myself. I find that more interesting anyway.



Yeah... we're probably quite a ways away from any updated Monster Manual playtest packets, as I'm sure they want to get the community's feedback on the idea of powerful Recharge abilities being a defacto "crit-like" system before they start cranking out all manner of monster blocks that have Recharge abilities in them.


----------



## darjr

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yeah... we're probably quite a ways away from any updated Monster Manual playtest packets, as I'm sure they want to get the community's feedback on the idea of powerful Recharge abilities being a defacto "crit-like" system before they start cranking out all manner of monster blocks that have Recharge abilities in them.



We might get bits of em to play against.


----------



## DEFCON 1

One thing that might be an interesting twist... if by some chance the community tells them they _do not_ want monsters to lose the ability to critical hit... would be for PCs to be able to use their Inspiration to _cancel _a crit made by a monster.

If Inspiration dice are now meant to be gained, used, and regained on a much quicker pace... then allowing PCs to spend them to reduce enemy functionality in addition to increasing their own functionality, might be an interesting variation and change.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> One of the dumbest/worst lore fails of 5E (which had pretty few outright lore fails imho) was that Angels were solely the servants of Good gods, which left Neutral and Evil ones with no real inherent servants because Devils/Demons explicitly weren't that. Just a total mismatch with the cosmology.




I had no idea that they made that change from 4e. I've still been playing with Angels of all the gods. Besides, Angels should always be terrifying and brutal, good or not, IMO.


----------



## Ondath

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.



In the playtest video, Crawford says they've changed Nat 20 and Nat 1 to be auto success/fail on all saves, checks and attacks.


----------



## MarkB

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Let's say there is a magical lock, imbued with ever-changing cylinders from the plane of Limbo itself. The DC to pick this lock is 35. Could a level 20 rogue pick this lock? Yes, with luck. Should I allow a level 1 fighter who found some lockpicks a roll?



Are you in any doubt as to whether or not the level 1 fighter is capable of picking the lock? No? Then don't allow the roll. But if it's a character who might plausibly have close to a high enough bonus to make the roll, which is the example you previously provided, then yes, absolutely - that's precisely when a character getting lucky on a natural 20 and succeeding beyond their natural aptitude will be an awesome moment.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

MarkB said:


> Are you in any doubt as to whether or not the level 1 fighter is capable of picking the lock? No? Then don't allow the roll. But if it's a character who might plausibly have close to a high enough bonus to make the roll, which is the example you previously provided, then yes, absolutely - that's precisely when a character getting lucky on a natural 20 and succeeding beyond their natural aptitude will be an awesome moment.



So now I have to keep track of the PCs' lockpick bonuses in order to decide whether or not to allow a roll. Why can't I just set a high DC and rely on that to eliminate impossible attempts?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> So now I have to keep track of the PCs' lockpick bonuses in order to decide whether or not to allow a roll. Why can't I just set a high DC and rely on that to eliminate impossible attempts?



Not really, just ask if they are proficient. Anyone with proficiency should have a chance even if only characters with expertise have odds.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> So now I have to keep track of the PCs' lockpick bonuses in order to decide whether or not to allow a roll. Why can't I just set a high DC and rely on that to eliminate impossible attempts?



If you have a locked door you don't want the PCs to get through... don't set a DC at all and just say it can't be opened.

Besides, it's a team game. What difference does it make if the Fighter opens it or the Rogue with Expertise in Thieve's Tools opens it?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> So now I have to keep track of the PCs' lockpick bonuses in order to decide whether or not to allow a roll. Why can't I just set a high DC and rely on that to eliminate impossible attempts?




I hate to argue with you, and you can do what you like, but I don't undestand this complaint at all. The only reason to put a Magical, God-Lock with a dc of 35 into play is if you don't want the PCs picking it (at low-to-mid-level). So just don't make them roll (this is a clear part of the Rules in the DMG). If you want them to have a chance at picking it, then they can have a 1-in-20 chance, It won't happen often anyway.


----------



## DEFCON 1

FitzTheRuke said:


> I hate to argue with you, and you can do what you like, but I don't undestand this complaint at all. The only reason to put a Magical, God-Lock with a dc of 35 into play is if you don't want the PCs picking it (at low-to-mid-level). So just don't make them roll (this is a clear part of the Rules in the DMG). If you want them to have a chance at picking it, then they can have a 1-in-20 chance, It won't happen often anyway.



Heh heh.. or they can just not use the new '20-always-succeeds' rule in their game if that matters that much to them.

I mean if anyone thinks that this game is going to be exactly what they want across the board and their days of houseruling D&D is over... I hate to break it to them, buuuuuuuuuuut.....


----------



## billd91

overgeeked said:


> And it’s not going to be free. Even further widening the divide.



Well, *something's* gotta pay for the development, maintenance, etc.


----------



## Retreater

The "20's always succeed" rule reminds me of Critical Role fans rolling Natural 20s to Intimidate boulders back up the mountain.


----------



## reelo

Retreater said:


> The "20's always succeed" rule reminds me of Critical Role fans rolling Natural 20s to Intimidate boulders back up the mountain.



/groan
/facepalm


----------



## Aldarc

Has anyone stopped and considered the implications for an Arcane spell list for Warlocks?


----------



## Tutara

Aldarc said:


> Has anyone stopped and considered the implications for an Arcane spell list for Warlocks?



No sign of dear old Eldritch Blast, so it could be getting reinvented as a class feature?


----------



## Aldarc

Tutara said:


> No sign of dear old Eldritch Blast, so it could be getting reinvented as a class feature?



Or possibly one of the class-specific spells.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

A great, awesome, fabulous work by the artists. It is very style of 5e, but the spirit is really loyal to the original Dragonlance.


----------



## Havrik Stoneskimmer

FitzTheRuke said:


> I hate to argue with you, and you can do what you like, but I don't undestand this complaint at all. The only reason to put a Magical, God-Lock with a dc of 35 into play is if you don't want the PCs picking it (at low-to-mid-level). So just don't make them roll (this is a clear part of the Rules in the DMG). If you want them to have a chance at picking it, then they can have a 1-in-20 chance, It won't happen often anyway.



Well, the world is the world, so if this lock exists in it, low-level PCs wouldn't have any chance of getting into it and high-level PCs would. It has nothing to do with what I "want".

In any event, I was happy to see that the UA at least says that if the DC is lower than 5 or higher than 30 a roll is not called for. I'm still not sure that a 1st level PC with a negative modifier should have a 5% chance of accomplishing a DC 30 task, but...


----------



## MonsterEnvy

SkidAce said:


> I don't think Ardlings replace Aasimar.  Sounded like they are a player character archon type lineage (anthropomorphic).



Pretty sure they are based on Gu*ard*inals, who were very animal like.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Havrik Stoneskimmer said:


> Well, the world is the world, so if this lock exists in it, low-level PCs wouldn't have any chance of getting into it and high-level PCs would. It has nothing to do with what I "want".
> 
> In any event, I was happy to see that the UA at least says that if the DC is lower than 5 or higher than 30 a roll is not called for. I'm still not sure that a 1st level PC with a negative modifier should have a 5% chance of accomplishing a DC 30 task, but...



The DM pretty much just says don't roll if they are not going to succeed.


----------



## Baumi

Interesting, Unarmed Attack lets you now choose between Damage, Grapple and Shove after a hit. Which makes it far more potent and Grapple and Shove easier.


----------



## Baumi

If you have Proficiency in a Tool and Skill that combines, than you have advantage. But where does this happen? Intruments are their own category and they have nothing like that written (which would easily combine with Performe).

Edit: Ups I was wrong, Music Instruments still counts as tools, so you do get Advantage if you are trained in Perform and the Instrument you use 8D


----------



## Baumi

Short Rest still lives on. I had hoped that the two kind of different Rests would fade since it's a very common source of trouble for GMs.


----------



## JEB

Aldarc said:


> This edition has published books for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. And people think that they aren't catering to grognards?



Pre-Tasha 5E was catering to grognards, as shown by the Realms and Eberron. Post-Tasha definitely isn't, as shown by Ravenloft and Spelljammer (and likely Dragonlance as well). What's happening now is not catering, but simply reuse of old IP to tap into name recognition and nostalgia - pretty standard practice in the entertainment industry at this point. If they were catering, they wouldn't reboot and reimagine, they'd just update.



DarkCrisis said:


> Dragonlance will be a good example for how the 5th ed version of Planescape will be "updated".



I think Ravenloft and Spelljammer already gave us a pretty good idea.



Thaumaturge said:


> Listening to the play test video gives an indication of how they're going to talk about D&D moving forward. Jeremy Crawford isn't talking about the "5th edition Player's Handbook" he's talking about the "2014 Player's Handbook".
> 
> Thaumaturge.



Ha, so my "2014 5E" and "2024 5E" distinctions weren't far off the mark...

BTW, "fifth edition" and "One D&D" are clearly being thought of as different things, if compatible. Pay attention to the way they talk about them in the General FAQ here. One D&D is a 6E in all but name.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

darjr said:


>



I know I can't swear, but that was flippin' awesome


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Thanks to @Abstruse and @darjr for documenting all the sweet sweet goodness coming down the pike.

Some of the items I'll be skipping, and others I'm all in. 

I've been looking for an excuse to get off Roll20 for a while. If D&DB equally buggy or better, I'm def going to switch. 

Am I the only one who's mind was blown that there have been 39 Drizzt books! I assume more pages than Wheel of Time?

I keep pronouncing OneD&D as wundy andy...


----------



## RFB Dan

Eyes of Nine said:


> Thanks to @Abstruse and @darjr for documenting all the sweet sweet goodness coming down the pike.
> 
> Some of the items I'll be skipping, and others I'm all in.
> 
> I've been looking for an excuse to get off Roll20 for a while. If D&DB equally buggy or better, I'm def going to switch.
> 
> Am I the only one who's mind was blown that there have been 39 Drizzt books! I assume more pages than Wheel of Time?
> 
> I keep pronouncing OneD&D as wundy andy...



Anyone with the first name Andrew: you now have your new screen name! Wundy Andy! love it.


----------



## Nikosandros

Zaukrie said:


> People like spell attacks because they are rolling, not the DM. I'd like more. A miss could do half damage, for example, like a successful save.



I must say that I dislike that some spells have a save and others an attack rolls, because of the way this interacts with other elements. For example, magic resistance only applies to saves, while exhaustion only to attack rolls.


----------



## Nikosandros

Tutara said:


> No sign of dear old Eldritch Blast, so it could be getting reinvented as a class feature?



We can hope...


----------



## Nikosandros

I have a comment on the presentation itself. Why didn't they put the names of the speakers, at least when they first appeared on screen? They only did that for Schneider and Irwin during the Dragonlance segment.


----------



## glass

eyeheartawk said:


> So, it looks like the 2024 revision will likely be all about this integration and probably minimal rule changes.



Why do "minimal rule changes" require a length public playtest.



Reynard said:


> "Reimagining" of Dragonlance confirmed.



If they can make the gods of capital-G-Good a bit less evil, that will be an improvement.



FitzTheRuke said:


> (this is a clear part of the Rules in the DMG).



What DMG? This was about the 2024 revision, for which the DMG does not exist yet.


Anyway, the art is amazing. It is disappointing but not surprising that you need to go through D&D Beyond to get the playtest. "One D&D" is a silly and slightly unsettling name. Auto success on saves is good (especially given 5e's lack of save scaling is unlikely to change), but auto-success on skill checks is ridiculous.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

glass said:


> What DMG? This was about the 2024 revision, for which the DMG does not exist yet.



Yes, very droll. The current rules of the game are the 2014 rules until something contradicts them. My point, which I think was clear, is that this isn't a "change" from how things are now.


----------



## glass

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yes, very droll. The current rules of the game are the 2014 rules until something contradicts them. My point, which I think was clear, is that this isn't a "change" from how things are now.



Except that it very much _is _a change. At the moment, natural 1s and 20s do not do jack (except on attack rolls).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

glass said:


> Except that it very much _is _a change. At the moment, natural 1s and 20s do not do jack (except on attack rolls).



Yes, of course, but the part I was talking about (that isn't a change) is that if you (as a DM) don't think that a PC should be able to succeed at a check (or should _always_ succeed)... you DON'T MAKE THEM ROLL. That hasn't changed. So it doesn't matter that a DEX 8 fighter could, under the potential new rules, succeed at picking a dc30 lock if they rolled a 20. If the PC tried to do it, you just wouldn't make them roll. They'd just fail. They wouldn't even get the dice out. That's how it works NOW, and it's how it would work under these rules, assuming they are kept (which is no guarantee).


----------



## Nikosandros

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yes, of course, but the part I was talking about (that isn't a change) is that if you (as a DM) don't think that a PC should be able to succeed at a check (or should _always_ succeed)... you DON'T MAKE THEM ROLL. That hasn't changed. So it doesn't matter that a DEX 8 fighter could, under the potential new rules, succeed at picking a dc30 lock if they rolled a 20. If the PC tried to do it, you just wouldn't make them roll. They'd just fail. They wouldn't even get the dice out. That's how it works NOW, and it's how it would work under these rules, assuming they are kept (which is no guarantee).



Well, since that fighter would need to roll a 31, under the playtest rule he can't make the roll...


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Nikosandros said:


> Well, since that fighter would need to roll a 31, under the playtest rule he can't make the roll...



Exactly! And in regular old 5e, you wouldn't make him roll either.


----------



## glass

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yes, of course, but the part I was talking about (that isn't a change) is that if you (as a DM) don't think that a PC should be able to succeed at a check (or should _always_ succeed)... you DON'T MAKE THEM ROLL. That hasn't changed. So it doesn't matter that a DEX 8 fighter could, under the potential new rules, succeed at picking a dc30 lock if they rolled a 20. If the PC tried to do it, you just wouldn't make them roll. They'd just fail. They wouldn't even get the dice out. That's how it works NOW, and it's how it would work under these rules, assuming they are kept (which is no guarantee).



So you are guessing what will be in the new DMG. It is probably a good guess, but that does not alter the fact that you do not know because it has not been written yet.


----------



## Abstruse

glass said:


> So you are guessing what will be in the new DMG. It is probably a good guess, but that does not alter the fact that you do not know because it has not been written yet.



Meh, the entire discourse at this point is people taking one off-hand comment in the YouTube video or one paragraph from the playtest document, inventing an entire rules system out of that statement, deciding that is _definitely _what the new rule will be, then talking about how much they hate the new rules they invented in their own head. Or worse, people who haven't seen the video or read the playtest packet who are commenting on others' made-up rules.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Abstruse said:


> Meh, the entire discourse at this point is people taking one off-hand comment in the YouTube video or one paragraph from the playtest document, inventing an entire rules system out of that statement, deciding that is _definitely _what the new rule will be, then talking about how much they hate the new rules they invented in their own head. Or worse, people who haven't seen the video or read the playtest packet who are commenting on others' made-up rules.



That practically defines internet discourse.


----------



## MarkB

glass said:


> So you are guessing what will be in the new DMG. It is probably a good guess, but that does not alter the fact that you do not know because it has not been written yet.



It literally says in the playtest packet that the DM decides whether or not a roll is warranted.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

glass said:


> So you are guessing what will be in the new DMG. It is probably a good guess, but that does not alter the fact that you do not know because it has not been written yet.



Uh... no. I'm not guessing about anything. This conversation is getting weird. 

I was responding to the idea that it was a big _change_ that characters could succeed on a dc35 check (for example) when they only have a +1 bonus (or whatever). 

_It isn't a change_, because you couldn't do that before and you can't do that now. 

In both cases (based on the rules we HAVE, not on anything anyone (myself included) is making up in their heads). In _both cases_, your DM would not ask for a roll. 

Unless they chose to. At that point it's their own problem if they get a result that they don't want. It's literally not a problem unless you make it one.


----------



## Charlaquin

darjr said:


> ONE  D&D?View attachment 258166



Ok, I’m not usually a big VTT person, but…
Damn, that’s pretty.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

MonsterEnvy said:


> Pretty sure they are based on Gu*ard*inals, who were very animal like.




 I see what you did ther







glass said:


> Why do "minimal rule changes" require a length public playtest.
> 
> 
> If they can make the gods of capital-G-Good a but less evil, that will be an improvement.
> 
> 
> What DMG? This was about the 2024 revision, for which the DMG does not exist yet.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the art is amazing. It is disappointing but not surprising that you need to go through D&D Beyond to get the playtest. "One D&D" is a silly and slightly unsettling name. Auto success on saves is good (especially given 5e's lack of save scaling is unlikely to change), but auto-success on skill checks is ridiculous.




 It's just a code name, but it's generating a lot of LotRs jokes already.


----------



## glass

Abstruse said:


> Meh, the entire discourse at this point is people taking one off-hand comment in the YouTube video or one paragraph from the playtest document, inventing an entire rules system out of that statement, deciding that is _definitely _what the new rule will be, then talking about how much they hate the new rules they invented in their own head. Or worse, people who haven't seen the video or read the playtest packet who are commenting on others' made-up rules.



You quoted me so I assume this is supposed to be a response to me. But it is a non-sequitur since my _entire point_ is that we do not know what the new rules will be beyond a tiny subset.



MarkB said:


> It literally says in the playtest packet that the DM decides whether or not a roll is warranted.



But unless it says _on what basis_ the DM decides, that is not terribly helpful. Does it say? I am guessing not.



FitzTheRuke said:


> Uh... no. I'm not guessing about anything. This conversation is getting weird.



Well, the second part is definitely true. Unless I am mistaken about the packet saying on what basis the DM decides we are back to your taking unpublished information as fact, ie guessing, so the first part is false.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> You quoted me so I assume this is supposed to be a response to me. But it is a non-sequitur since my _entire point_ is that we do not know what the new rules will be beyond a tiny subset.
> 
> 
> But unless it says _on what basis_ the DM decides, that is not terribly helpful. Does it say? I am guessing not.
> 
> 
> Well, the second part is definitely true. Unless I am mistaken about the packet saying on what basis the DM decides we are back to your taking unpublished information as fact, ie guessing, so the first part is false.



Crawford said explicitly that if something isnt mententioned in the packet, to follow the 2014 PHB and DMG. And Proficiency gating is a very normal part of D&D, which I doubt will change.


----------



## Abstruse

glass said:


> You quoted me so I assume this is supposed to be a response to me. But it is a non-sequitur since my _entire point_ is that we do not know what the new rules will be beyond a tiny subset.



Yes, I was agreeing with your point. Not every comment on the internet is antagonistic


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> Crawford said explicitly that if something isnt mententioned in the packet, to follow the 2014 PHB and DMG. And Proficiency gating is a very normal part of D&D, which I doubt will change.



Yes, but a rule about when to allow skill checks above the hitable DC and when not to is only required because of the proposed 2024 rule, so cannot possibly be in the 2014 DMG.



Abstruse said:


> Yes, I was agreeing with your point. Not every comment on the internet is antagonistic



Ah, sorry. It can be difficult to tell sometimes.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> Yes, but a rule about when to allow skill checks above the hitable DC and when not to is only required because of the proposed 2024 rule, so cannot possibly be in the 2014 DMG.



Choosing to allow a rile or not is already in the 2014 DMG. Rolls are only allowed if thenDM judges they are possible. So the 6 Stregnth Wizard cannot roll to win the Marathon, and the 6 Intelligence Barbarian will not be able to roll the Arcana check. That's already how the Skill system operates.


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> Choosing to allow a rile or not is already in the 2014 DMG. Rolls are only allowed if thenDM judges they are possible. So the 6 Stregnth Wizard cannot roll to win the Marathon, and the 6 Intelligence Barbarian will not be able to roll the Arcana check. That's already how the Skill system operates.



Are you saying that the proposed change to the rule is not actually a change at all, because the natural 20 would auto succeed if the DM allowed you to roll but they won't allow you to roll? If so, that is certainly a take. If not, I refer you to my earlier comments.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> Are you saying that the proposed change to the rule is not actually a change at all, because the natural 20 would auto succeed if the DM allowed you to roll but they won't allow you to roll? If so, that is certainly a take. If not, I refer you to my earlier comments.



No, I'm saying not allowing players to roll impossible checks (Dumb Barbarian for Arcana, Qeak Wizard for Olympic events) is not a rule change, because that is already in 5E. That's hiw the game works. Of a test us ludicrously easy (like a 20 Strength Athlete pouring a glass of milk) you don't ask for a roll and just say yes, just like you don't ask for a roll on an impossible check and just say no. This is already the standard, so allowing fails on 1 or auto-success on 20 doesn't change the likelihood of making easy checks or impossible checks at all.


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> This is already the standard, so allowing fails on 1 or auto-success on 20 doesn't change the likelihood of making easy checks or impossible checks at all.



So you _are _saying this change will never actually come in to play because the DM will have to do more work to prevent it? Then why make it in the first place?


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> So you _are _saying this change will never actually come in to play because the DM will have to do more work to prevent it? Then why make it in the first place?



No, I'm saying that DMs are already doing that work. Or ought to be. If one is already letting people make rolls that are impossible for their character, that is diverging from the RAW and RAI as it stands.


----------



## MarkB

Parmandur said:


> No, I'm saying that DMs are already doing that work. Or ought to be. If one is already letting people make rolls that are impossible for their character, that is diverging from the RAW and RAI as it stands.



But with autosuccess on a 20, the criteria for what is impossible is no longer simply "can't roll high enough to meet the DC".


----------



## Parmandur

MarkB said:


> But with autosuccess on a 20, the criteria for what is impossible is no longer simply "can't roll high enough to meet the DC".



Yeah, but the Criteria was always fuzzy, and "don't let a non-proficient PC roll" has been actively promot3d for the entire Edition. The Wizard cannot roll to participate in the high jump at the Olympiad, the Barbarian cannot roll to read the ancient inscription. This is already how 5E works, that's not a change.


----------



## MarkB

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, but the Criteria was always fuzzy, and "don't let a non-proficient PC roll" has been actively promot3d for the entire Edition. The Wizard cannot roll to participate in the high jump at the Olympiad, the Barbarian cannot roll to read the ancient inscription. This is already how 5E works, that's not a change.



Still, this particular proposed rule seems to be causing some of the greatest confusion and consternation out of all the playtest content so far. If it does persist into the finished product, I hope they include significantly more specific guidance as to how to adjudicate when a roll is warranted.


----------



## Parmandur

MarkB said:


> Still, this particular proposed rule seems to be causing some of the greatest confusion and consternation out of all the playtest content so far. If it does persist into the finished product, I hope they include significantly more specific guidance as to how to adjudicate when a roll is warranted.



I mean, is it really...? As they point out in the video, it already an extremely common house rule (see also, Critical Role), so I doubt many in the surveybwill object to what is a non-chsnge for their table. And there aren't narrative implications if gating, as per RAW and RAI, is being used.


----------



## MarkB

Parmandur said:


> I mean, is it really...? As they point out in the video, it already an extremely common house rule (see also, Critical Role), so I doubt many in the surveybwill object to what is a non-chsnge for their table. And there aren't narrative implications if gating, as per RAW and RAI, is being used.



The dedicated thread on the topic is up to 13 pages, mostly consisting of arguments regarding the circumstances under which a check should be deemed impossible.


----------



## Parmandur

MarkB said:


> The dedicated thread on the topic is up to 13 pages, mostly consisting of arguments regarding the circumstances under which a check should be deemed impossible.



Only 13 pages? How many posters are involved? Perhaps a dozen, 20 at the outside?

The line is fuzzy, because Rulings, Not Rules. It is individual DM prerogative. But now part of the calculus is just simply "do I want this character to possibly accomplish this narratively?" Like the 6 Stength Wizard becoming an Olympian. Of no. Them don't allow a roll. Simple.


----------



## glass

jeremypowell said:


> This is a total tangent, because truly wacky edge cases like this shouldn't be taken into account when evaluating a proposed rules change



Normally I would agree with you. But if the rule's only possible effect is introducing "truly wacky edge cases" that is worthy of comment.



Parmandur said:


> No, I'm saying that DMs are already doing that work. Or ought to be. If one is already letting people make rolls that are impossible for their character, that is diverging from the RAW and RAI as it stands.



Under the 2014 rules, simple arithmetic does the job automatically so the DM does not need to. If you want to do it anyway, that's up to you, but when I am running the game I have too many other things to be doing to bother with pointless busywork.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> Normally I would agree with you. But if the rule's only possible effect is introducing "truly wacky edge cases" that is worthy of comment.
> 
> 
> Under the 2014 rules, simple arithmetic does the job automatically so the DM does not need to. If you want to do it anyway, that's up to you, but when I am running the game I have too many other things to be doing to bother with pointless busywork.



I mean, if you don't want to follow the existing rules guidance, that's fine...but it's not the rules fault if you allow the wimpy Wizard to become an Olymoic Champion.

Just because some people ignore a rule doesn't mean that following that rule is a rules change. And the autocrit/fail change, which is a change, is already live and active in the community via homebrew...interacting with the rules as written.

Also, how is saying "are you proficient in Athletics?" hard, or really even work...?


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> Also, how is saying "are you proficient in Athletics?" hard, or really even work...?



Bring those goalpost back!



Parmandur said:


> I mean, if you don't want to follow the existing rules guidance, that's fine...but it's not the rules fault if you allow the wimpy Wizard to become an Olymoic Champion.



The 2014 rules *DO NO ALLOW A WIMPY WIZARD TO BECOME AN OLYMPIC CHAMPION*. Purely by RAW and simple arithmetic. No guidance or DM busywork required.

That is the whole point: This change either create stupid results in cases which uncommon, but given 5e's maths not _that _uncommon. Or the GM can do a bunch of extra work to prevent those stupid results, in which case it does nothing at all (except creating that extra busywork).


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> Bring those goalpost back!
> 
> 
> The 2014 rules *DO NO ALLOW A WIMPY WIZARD TO BECOME AN OLYMPIC CHAMPION*. Purely by RAW and simple arithmetic. No guidance or DM busywork required.
> 
> That is the whole point: This change either create stupid results in cases which uncommon, but given 5e's maths not _that _uncommon. Or the GM can do a bunch of extra work to prevent those stupid results, in which case it does nothing at all (except creating that extra busywork).



There's no moving goalposts: Proficiency gating, where non-traoened characters can't attempt a DC 20 say, is a perfectly standard part of 2014 5E. It's in the books, the designers run their love broadcast games that way, it's on Critical Role. There is nonrule change involved in following the RAW and RAI of 2014.


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> There's no moving goalposts: Proficiency gating, where non-traoened characters can't attempt a DC 20 say, is a perfectly standard part of 2014 5E



That may well be true. It is also completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Hence the goalpost moving.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> That may well be true. It is also completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Hence the goalpost moving.



It is 100% relevant, and no goal posts have been moved. This is a discussion about the autocrit/fail rule change. The question came up if this opens up corner case oddities for Skill checks, and the answer is that no, it does not, due to the already existing rules structure of gating checks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

And if you roll to decide who is the olympic champion,  by all means,  don't make it a single roll,  but a series of rolls.

Spear throwing: everyone make 6 rolls. The best rolls will decide who is the champion. And suddenly, the 6 str wizard won't win,  except when they are very luck and the 20 str,  trained fighter will overstep and fumble... which has happened in sports.

But considering that there are 10 athletes, all making six rolls,  the wizard won't have a chance.


----------



## Parmandur

UngeheuerLich said:


> And if you roll to decide who is the olympic champion,  by all means,  don't make it a single roll,  but a series of rolls.
> 
> Spear throwing: everyone make 6 rolls. The best rolls will decide who is the champion. And suddenly, the 6 str wizard won't win,  except when they are very luck and the 20 str,  trained fighter will overstep and fumble... which has happened in sports.
> 
> But considering that there are 10 athletes, all making six rolls,  the wizard won't have a chance.



Allowing with disadvantage is also an option. The rules, as they exist, can accommodate the change easily, is the thing.


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> It is 100% relevant, and no goal posts have been moved. This is a discussion about the autocrit/fail rule change. The question came up if this opens up corner case oddities for Skill checks, and the answer is that no, it does not, due to the already existing rules structure of gating checks.



One last try before I give up: Whatever "already existing structure" there is in the 2014 edition cannot possibly be there to prevent auto-success nat-20 naughty word, because nat-20 auto-success naughty word does not exist in the 2014 rules. Even if there are things DMs can repurpose for that, he only needs to repurpose them _because of the change_. Easier for all concerned to not make the change, and continue to allow basic arithmetic to prevent said corner-case oddities.


----------



## Parmandur

glass said:


> One last try before I give up: Whatever "already existing structure" there is in the 2014 edition cannot possibly be there to prevent auto-success nat-20 naughty word, because nat-20 auto-success naughty word does not exist in the 2014 rules. Even if there are things DMs can repurpose for that, he only needs to repurpose them _because of the change_. Easier for all concerned to not make the change, and continue to allow basic arithmetic to prevent said corner-case oddities.



I'm really not sure where the confusion is on this issue, but it is really very simple: autosuccess works well in 2014 as written without any change if the standards in the 2014 rules for allowing rolls is followed. Running the game as written already prevents the foreseen issue, no changes or repurposing necessary. Gating isn't new or a change, and already is being used in the game.


----------



## MarkB

glass said:


> One last try before I give up: Whatever "already existing structure" there is in the 2014 edition cannot possibly be there to prevent auto-success nat-20 naughty word, because nat-20 auto-success naughty word does not exist in the 2014 rules. Even if there are things DMs can repurpose for that, he only needs to repurpose them _because of the change_. Easier for all concerned to not make the change, and continue to allow basic arithmetic to prevent said corner-case oddities.



By which logic it's better not to change any rules, regardless of how well the existing frameworks would support such changes.


----------



## glass

Parmandur said:


> I'm really not sure where the confusion is on this issue



Well the only confusion on my end is why WotC would want to make such an obviously daft change, and why you are so determined to defend the indefensible. Not that I will see any further defences you wish to make.



MarkB said:


> By which logic it's better not to change any rules, regardless of how well the existing frameworks would support such changes.



Yes, exactly. If the best thing you can say about the rules change is "it won't actually change anything, because unrelated rules mechanisms will mitigate its effects", then absolutely you should not change it.


----------



## MarkB

glass said:


> Yes, exactly. If the best thing you can say about the rules change is "it won't actually change anything, because unrelated rules mechanisms will mitigate its effects", then absolutely you should not change it.



I certainly hope it will change things, by introducing more situations in which players get the thrill of pulling off an unlikely success in a pinch. That's fun as far as I'm concerned, and I look forward to experiencing it both as a player and DM.

And since the rules that already exist are perfectly good at limiting any unwanted effects of this rule change, there's no downside to be concerned about.


----------



## glass

@MarkB, I just spent way too many posts going round and round on this with Parmandur. I have no interest in doing the same pointless dance with you.


----------

