# 'One D&D' Takes 5E to New & Digital Places



## Ruin Explorer

brimmels said:


> However, they really want players to make their own Backgrounds, with DM approval.



They've been trying to get people to do this since the launch of 5E, and we still have a situation where even half the DMs on this board, who are some of the most expert/experienced DMs, still profoundly do not get that the DEFAULT is "Custom", that "Custom" should be normal, and the fixed backgrounds are merely examples. Sheesh even with the DMs I play with, one of them was like "Wait you're using a custom background, is that allowed?!" and I'm like "Sigh...".


----------



## Mallus

I like the expanded role of backgrounds and starting feat. It's a little bit of classic Traveller chargen (with the chance of death removed).


----------



## MonsterEnvy

The FAQ








						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


----------



## sevenbastard

I am all for a high quality 3d virtual table. I get it fundamental takes the default of the game online, but I can live with that.


----------



## Weiley31

So, the Ardling is basically the celestial version of the Tiefling? Strange, the Assimar was pretty much supposed to be that technically. Then again, I know there are beast celestials and what not so the Ardling could represent those with the Assimar still being the Assimar.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: Ardling=Hound Archon or other animal type Archons like the Bear and Owl. At least, one way of refluffing it.


----------



## Oofta

Not surprised that they're just doing some reorganization along with minor tweaks and not a major rewrite.  There are some things [spin the wheel of random options, spin again when I get "index" because it's too obvious] they could give better examples and advice when it comes to CR and building encounters.  There is no way to have a one size fits all, so they should talk about how to adjust for group and campaign style.  It will never be perfect, but advice on how to adjust would be useful.

Maybe we'll see something slightly more drastic in play tests.


----------



## JohnnyZemo

The most drastic thing I've heard mentioned so far is that they're considering changes to critical hits.


----------



## Justice and Rule

Mallus said:


> I like the expanded role of backgrounds and starting feat. It's a little bit of classic Traveller chargen (with the chance of death removed).




It's actually like, straight-up just Pathfinder 2E backgrounds: Add a Skill, ASI, and a Feat. Good system, but with how 5E feats work it'll be interesting to see how they balance it. Definitely means you could start making more marginal feats to have them be taken at the beginning, but there are some feats that are just absolutely better than others. It'll be interesting to see how they balance it.


----------



## doctorhook

> We did a smart thing with 5th edition, by listening to fans,” said Chris Perkins, Game Design Architect for D&D, “and what came out of that process was a system that is stable, that is well loved, that incorporates the best elements of earlier editions. Now that we have that we are no longer in the position where we think of D&D as an edition.' It's just D&D.”




This bit of marketing hype-speak made my eyes roll. Microsoft once told me that Windows 10 would be the last edition of Windows, too.

Anyway, 5E is huge, popular, and old. It needs a revision badly and I’m glad WotC is moving that way. However, I must shoutout to EN Publishing’s Level Up: Advanced 5E, my preferred revision of 5E. WotC’s recent products have left me pessimistic about their future ones, but I look forward to seeing if maybe they can win me back.


----------



## beancounter

It's been my experience that backgrounds are forgotten by the third or fourth session unless it's specifically intertwined with the adventure. And even when it is, it's usually just one character, and the rest of the players pretty much forget about theirs.

A feat at level 1 is power creep IMHO.


----------



## Justice and Rule

beancounter said:


> It's been my experience that backgrounds are forgotten by the third or fourth session unless it's specifically intertwined with the adventure. And even when it is, it's usually just one character, and the rest of the players pretty much forget about theirs.
> 
> A feat at level 1 is power creep IMHO.




I mean, having a bit of power creep for level 1 characters is probably a good thing. More than that, it seems like they are going to do leveled feats, so having lower-level feats be automatically granted by backgrounds is a good way of assuring unique (initially) mechanical bonuses at the start of things. Their original idea of doing non-mechanical stuff was definitely an attempt at something, but I'm not sure it ever quite hit right.

Now we just have to hope that they balance feats in a good way. The example used above is _Alert_, which I'm guessing might change given that it's a fairly good feat in the current rules. But maybe the current feat is the sort of one they want to have available at first level. My interest is definitely piqued.


----------



## beancounter

Justice and Rule said:


> I mean, having a bit of power creep for level 1 characters is probably a good thing. More than that, it seems like they are going to do leveled feats, so having lower-level feats be automatically granted by backgrounds is a good way of assuring unique (initially) mechanical bonuses at the start of things. Their original idea of doing non-mechanical stuff was definitely an attempt at something, but I'm not sure it ever quite hit right.
> 
> Now we just have to hope that they balance feats in a good way. The example used above is _Alert_, which I'm guessing might change given that it's a fairly good feat in the current rules. But maybe the current feat is the sort of one they want to have available at first level. My interest is definitely piqued.




If they are buffing PCs, they should buff the monsters to level the playing field.


----------



## grimslade

I like the design space of feats as character abilities not tied to class. I hope they embrace it. Feat bloat would be preferable to sub-class bloat.


----------



## Retreater

"Buy an already assembled adventure from us, get the components to break apart and make your own adventures."
So if you want a zombie in a homebrew adventure, you buy "Curse of Strahd" and get access to the zombie digital token. Then you can run Curse of Strahd or use the zombie in your own adventure.

"Customize your adventurer."
So you will get access to a character designer (kind of like HeroForge) and make a digital token (for I'm guessing like $20) so you can play D&D.
Will each character require you to buy your own token? Can you use a stand-in generic token? Are you going to have to pay per character sheet you use? 

This hits me like the subscription and "microtransaction"-ing of D&D. 

And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Weiley31 said:


> Also: Ardling=Hound Archon or other animal type Archons like the Bear and Owl. At least, one way of refluffing it.



Beastlands Animal Lords as well. It fits pretty well across the Upper Planes.


----------



## Justice and Rule

beancounter said:


> If they are buffing PCs, they should buff the monsters to level the playing field.




It looks like they might well. They are taking away critical hits from monsters, but that could mean they will be buffing their damage more generally since they are going to have more consistent rolls. They said something along the lines of "Rechargeable attacks are criticals for monsters", so that probably gives you a good idea of what they are going for. I'd expect a lot more rechargable attacks and such.



Retreater said:


> And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.




Had a really, really good belly-laugh at this.


----------



## Corinnguard

Weiley31 said:


> So, the Ardling is basically the celestial version of the Tiefling? Strange, the Assimar was pretty much supposed to be that technically. Then again, I know there are beast celestials and what not so the Ardling could represent those with the Assimar still being the Assimar.



The Aasimars have been the celestial counterpart of the Tieflings since 2e D&D came out with the Planescape setting. So I am not sure what this article is getting at by saying the Ardlings are being designed to fit that very role. However, considering that WoTC is also developing Abyssal and Cthonic variants of the Tieflings, maybe the Aasimars are getting the same treatment? If so, the Ardlings could be Aasimars of Guardinal origin.  

Btw, WoTC is late to the table with regards to creating variants of the Tieflings and the Aasimars. Pathfinder 1st edition has 6 Aasimar heritages and 10 Tiefling heritages.


----------



## Weiley31

Corinnguard said:


> not sure what this article is getting at by saying the Ardlings are being designed to fit that very role.



That's why I said that the Archons, the animal ones at least, come to mind when I look at the Ardling. But I hear ya.


----------



## Corinnguard

doctorhook said:


> This bit of marketing hype-speak made my eyes roll. Microsoft once told me that Windows 10 would be the last edition of Windows, too.
> 
> Anyway, 5E is huge, popular, and old. It needs a revision badly and I’m glad WotC is moving that way. However, I must shoutout to EN Publishing’s Level Up: Advanced 5E, my preferred revision of 5E. WotC’s recent products have left me pessimistic about their future ones, but I look forward to seeing if maybe they can win me back.



Who isn't to say that this recent bit of news is because of Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition? It's been almost an entire year since A5e's Kickstarter and subsequent release to those who backed it.


----------



## Tsuga C

Retreater said:


> And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.




Two steps forward, five steps backwards.


----------



## Tsuga C

Retreater said:


> And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.




Two steps forward, five steps backwards.


----------



## teitan

Ok at first I was like cool then I was lost at feats no longer being optional.


----------



## beancounter

So now, many of the races (species really) are able to cast some spells regardless of class.

Not only is that power creep, but it makes wizards (and other casting classes) less relevant.

After reading some of this, I'm convinced that D&D characters will be blank slates (skins), and that each player will get a pool of points that allow them to gumball a random selection of abilities that may or may not make sense or be consistent.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Retreater said:


> And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.



Last I checked, we've had D&D as a video game for over 30 years now in some form or fashion.  This isn't anything new.


----------



## Blue

So, character creation at the least is no longer compatible.  Some old characters can no longer be created as they were witht he rules they are saying.

I'm fine with an _actual_ edition shift.  Each one has brought new things to the table, and I like the trend they have gone.  But this "it's still 'just D&D', but your books are out of date" is just a heaping pile of crap.  Be honest.

Even if I like the changes they are making, they tainted it all by pretending it's not an edition change.  Removing all the spell lists, and seperating a primal, arcane and dine.  Cool move, but THAT'S A FREAKING BIG CHANGE.

Call it what it is and I'd be for it.  But their current approach has steam coming out of my ears and reminds me that if any time I can break free from the tyranny of the masses in terms of what RPG I can find the players for, it's during a move like this.


----------



## Neonchameleon

DEFCON 1 said:


> Last I checked, we've had D&D as a video game for over 30 years now in some form or fashion.  This isn't anything new.



Last I checked, Colossal Cave Adventure in 1976 (which may be the most influential computer game most people have never heard of) was created out of frustration that a D&D group never got round to meeting up so they turned their exploration-heavy D&D game into a computer game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorhook said:


> This bit of marketing hype-speak made my eyes roll. Microsoft once told me that Windows 10 would be the last edition of Windows, too.
> 
> Anyway, 5E is huge, popular, and old. It needs a revision badly and I’m glad WotC is moving that way. However, I must shoutout to EN Publishing’s Level Up: Advanced 5E, my preferred revision of 5E. WotC’s recent products have left me pessimistic about their future ones, but I look forward to seeing if maybe they can win me back.



I sadly can't imagine what they could do to win me back.  They continue to double down on a design philosophy I disagree with.


----------



## Retreater

DEFCON 1 said:


> Last I checked, we've had D&D as a video game for over 30 years now in some form or fashion.  This isn't anything new.



Sure. Even before that there was the Intellivision game, Gold Box games, etc. 
This is running the core of the tabletop experience on an engine designed for video games.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> I sadly can't imagine what they could do to win me back.  They continue to double down on a design philosophy I disagree with.



Yeah, we know.  You like Level Up.  You've said that plenty of times.  We haven't forgotten.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Retreater said:


> Sure. Even before that there was the Intellivision game, Gold Box games, etc.
> This is running the core of the tabletop experience on an engine designed for video games.



True.


----------



## Micah Sweet

beancounter said:


> If they are buffing PCs, they should buff the monsters to level the playing field.



They would need to buff the monsters more than the PCs to level the playing field.


----------



## payn

So, the pillars of combat, role play, and exploration are clear to me since 5E launch. Im not sure how they translate here to;


brimmels said:


> An updated rule set that is still 5th edition but reorganized and with new character options
> D&D Beyond as the base of its digital tools
> A fully integrated playspace, which is currently in early development.



What am I missing?


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yeah, we know.  You like Level Up.  You've said that plenty of times.  We haven't forgotten.



And you've said rules don't matter to you plenty of times.  We all have our refrains.


----------



## DEFCON 1

payn said:


> So, the pillars of combat, role play, and exploration are clear to me since 5E launch. Im not sure how they translate here to;
> 
> What am I missing?



They've used the word 'pillars' for two different things?


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> And you've said rules don't matter to you plenty of times.  We all have our refrains.



Touche!


----------



## beancounter

Micah Sweet said:


> They would need to buff the monsters more than the PCs to level the playing field.




I agree.


----------



## Chaosmancer

beancounter said:


> Not only is that power creep, but it makes wizards (and other casting classes) less relevant.




Seriously? This news has me the most hyped about the entire thing. A glimmer of hope that full casters won't be the undisputed champions of the game?! 

All Hail One DnD!


----------



## Staffan

Weiley31 said:


> So, the Ardling is basically the celestial version of the Tiefling? Strange, the Assimar was pretty much supposed to be that technically. Then again, I know there are beast celestials and what not so the Ardling could represent those with the Assimar still being the Assimar.



This new race 'ardling seems fair to the good ole' aasimar.



doctorhook said:


> This bit of marketing hype-speak made my eyes roll. Microsoft once told me that Windows 10 would be the last edition of Windows, too.



I'm pretty sure they said the same with the release of 5e as well. That's why they called the playtest version "D&D Next", because they didn't want to put a number on it. Apple does the same with their IPads, it's always just "the new iPad" and if differentiation is needed they use the release year. I guess it's just a thing with some marketing people.



beancounter said:


> So now, many of the races (species really) are able to cast some spells regardless of class.



Many of them already did, e.g. tieflings and drow.


Blue said:


> So, character creation at the least is no longer compatible.  Some old characters can no longer be created as they were witht he rules they are saying.
> 
> I'm fine with an _actual_ edition shift.  Each one has brought new things to the table, and I like the trend they have gone.  But this "it's still 'just D&D', but your books are out of date" is just a heaping pile of crap.  Be honest.



The way I understand it, the game mechanics aren't going to change much (though there will be some changes as shown by conditions and possibly different rules for crits and such), but character creation will. Basically, take the following encounter description from Waterdeep: Dragon Heist:



Spoiler



When the characters arrive at her home, Grinda is holed up inside, having barricaded the doors with furniture. Trying to break down the doors are four members of the Xanathar Guild (CE male human bandits) under the command of a dwarf enforcer named Noska Ur’gray (see appendix B). A merrow also under Noska’s command swims beneath the docks. It surfaces to attack when the characters arrive.


That's still going to be a perfectly valid description of an encounter. It's just that the stats for the bandits and the merrow might not be quite the same.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> They would need to buff the monsters more than the PCs to level the playing field.




Um... not for 1st level play. 

Sure, maybe they'd need to buff the CR 9+ monsters for mid and high level play, but I've had to walk on eggshells not to blenderize 1st and 2nd level characters. And frankly, if getting something like Alert or Tough at first level throws your entire game out of whack... it was already poorly balanced. 

Additionally, there are a ridiculous number of things you are expected to do for monsters to buff them without needing to change any rules at all.


----------



## beancounter

Chaosmancer said:


> Seriously? This news has me the most hyped about the entire thing. A glimmer of hope that full casters won't be the undisputed champions of the game?!
> 
> All Hail One DnD!




When everyone is a superhero, no one is a superhero.

But seriously, it's just making an easy game even easier.


----------



## Blue

Staffan said:


> This new race 'ardling seems fair to the good ole' aasimar.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they said the same with the release of 5e as well. That's why they called the playtest version "D&D Next", because they didn't want to put a number on it. Apple does the same with their IPads, it's always just "the new iPad" and if differentiation is needed they use the release year. I guess it's just a thing with some marketing people.
> 
> 
> Many of them already did, e.g. tieflings and drow.
> 
> The way I understand it, the game mechanics aren't going to change much (though there will be some changes as shown by conditions and possibly different rules for crits and such), but character creation will. Basically, take the following encounter description from Waterdeep: Dragon Heist:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> When the characters arrive at her home, Grinda is holed up inside, having barricaded the doors with furniture. Trying to break down the doors are four members of the Xanathar Guild (CE male human bandits) under the command of a dwarf enforcer named Noska Ur’gray (see appendix B). A merrow also under Noska’s command swims beneath the docks. It surfaces to attack when the characters arrive.
> 
> 
> That's still going to be a perfectly valid description of an encounter. It's just that the stats for the bandits and the merrow might not be quite the same.



Yes, like what happened with the change from 3.0 to 3.5.

Once you can have characters that no longer can be created by the system, it's at least a half edition shift.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

beancounter said:


> If they are buffing PCs, they should buff the monsters to level the playing field.





Micah Sweet said:


> They would need to buff the monsters more than the PCs to level the playing field.



I know you guys probably haven't bought the recent books because you hate the new direction of D&D and all . . . but that is precisely what they have been doing. In Monsters of the Multiverse, they buffed a lot of the monsters by giving them bonus action and reaction abilities, got rid of the Magic Weapon trait in favor of just changing the weapon's damage type (normally to force, the best damage type in the game), and altered their Multiattack to let them do more on their turn than they used to be able to. 

So . . . yeah, the monsters are mostly more powerful than before. Some got a bit weaker because they were ridiculously powerful for their CR before (Korreds and Zariel) or had full Spellcasting which was changed into Innate Spellcasting, but overall, the monsters are more powerful than they were before. 

I fully expect them to do the same for the 2024 Monster Manual.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I know you guys probably haven't bought the recent books because you hate the new direction of D&D and all . . . but that is precisely what they have been doing. In Monsters of the Multiverse, they buffed a lot of the monsters by giving them bonus action and reaction abilities, got rid of the Magic Weapon trait in favor of just changing the weapon's damage type (normally to force, the best damage type in the game), and altered their Multiattack to let them do more on their turn than they used to be able to.
> 
> So . . . yeah, the monsters are mostly more powerful than before. Some got a bit weaker because they were ridiculously powerful for their CR before (Korreds and Zariel) or had full Spellcasting which was changed into Innate Spellcasting, but overall, the monsters are more powerful than they were before.
> 
> I fully expect them to do the same for the 2024 Monster Manual.



I really don't like the way they did it, though.  I'm against losing full spellcasters, and homogenized damage types, senses, and "spell but not-a-spell" actions just makes the monsters less interesting.

I did generally like the changes to multiattack though.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I really don't like the way they did it, though. I'm against losing full spellcasters, and homogenized damage types, senses, and "spell but not-a-spell" actions just makes the monsters less interesting.



Then keep full spell lists. You have the old version. They're changing it to make it easier for new players. You're not a new player, so use the old version of you like it. 

"Homogenized damage types"? What does that even mean? I don't know what you're talking about for changes to senses, either. And "spell but not a spell" actions have been a part of 5e since the very beginning. Monsters have always had access to magical abilities that PCs don't get access to. Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and other monsters, for example.


----------



## MadPuppy

Not sure I agree with the "animal races" being popular....Was reading the spelljamer book recently....Space hamsters and Flying monkeys? What next Ozspace?!


----------



## Bagpuss

Deleted


----------



## Galandris

Retreater said:


> This hits me like the subscription and "microtransaction"-ing of D&D.
> 
> And those of you who complained that 4E was too much like an MMO - geez, it's literally a video game now.




Strangely I am not seeing it as "evolution" of D&D. It is just another product. Online play was useful at the time of covid but I fully expect not to spend the rest of my life unable to gather and play. I can see the use for people living in area where they can't find a group, but to me online play is a distinct activity from roleplaying in person. I can see WotC branching out to reach this (probably lucrative) market, but... even if it is microtransactioning I wouldn't be affected. I however fear they'd really consider this an "evolution" and drop the physical books going forward as they did with PDF. Well, "to fear" is a strong word: I consider I might not be interested in the offering they'd make as I won't pay for something linked to online play.



teitan said:


> Ok at first I was like cool then I was lost at feats no longer being optional.




If the new version is granting feats and characteristics bonus within background, and yet is "fully compatible with 5e", I'll gladly take the 5e racial ASI by being a classical elfe and combine them with a background granting ASIs too.




			
				op said:
			
		

> Humans would also be able to choose between being small and medium to reflect the fact that some humans in the real world are small.




Since it's often better to be small (if only to get partywide flight around level 1 by having a familiar carry a bag of holding to and fro while you can fit inside) because sure, some humans are small, I expect them to be overrepresented around powergaming tables.


----------



## Ath-kethin

What I would.moat like to aee is subclasses at level one for all classes. In many respects, the delayed subclass is my single biggest tripe with 5e.

I'd also like to see more distinct and discrete spell lists for different classes, but it looks like maybe they're moving in that direction.

So I'm optimistic overall, as long as they still have printed books in addition to the digital stuff.


----------



## TerraDave

Blue said:


> So, character creation at the least is no longer compatible.  Some old characters can no longer be created as they were witht he rules they are saying.
> 
> I'm fine with an _actual_ edition shift.  Each one has brought new things to the table, and I like the trend they have gone.  But this "it's still 'just D&D', but your books are out of date" is just a heaping pile of crap.  Be honest.
> 
> Even if I like the changes they are making, they tainted it all by pretending it's not an edition change.  Removing all the spell lists, and seperating a primal, arcane and dine.  Cool move, but THAT'S A FREAKING BIG CHANGE.
> 
> Call it what it is and I'd be for it.  But their current approach has steam coming out of my ears and reminds me that if any time I can break free from the tyranny of the masses in terms of what RPG I can find the players for, it's during a move like this.




Yes, changing all races, massively beefing up backgrounds, making feats mandatory, and totally reorganizing spells count as change, maybe even _core_ change. At least a .5 change. Even a 1e to 2e change. And they are not done yet. They are just getting started. 

I am not steaming, because I knew they were going to do something. They weren't going to have all this hype just to add some errata or fix witchbolt.


----------



## Mecheon

MadPuppy said:


> Not sure I agree with the "animal races" being popular....Was reading the spelljamer book recently....Space hamsters and Flying monkeys? What next Ozspace?!



Animal races are plenty popular. See: Minotaurs as the obvious example, but the various bird people, Tabaxi and Tortles are all popular, plus there's a call for Lupin to get re-added (frankly I prefer wolf lupin over the 'here's stats for literately every single type of dog' lupin, but, they're still a thing. actual mythological critter, y'know, the lupin)

and well, flying monkeys have been in D&D canon forever. Since Basic. Heck, they were even playable. They were called the Tabi. Nagpa liked them. They got player stats back in Top Balista, alongside harpies, sphinges, nagpa, gremlins, gnomes, and a few others


----------



## Argyle King

What's the reasoning behind critical hits only being for players?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Blue said:


> So, character creation at the least is no longer compatible. Some old characters can no longer be created as they were witht he rules they are saying.



I don't see it as no longer compatible. You could play characters created under this playtest with current 5e rules with little issue (a few things, like the musician feat, wouldn't fit quite right). If you played them alongside characters made exclusively with the 2014 PHB the only radical difference would be that they have a feat instead of a mostly useless Background Feature. If you played them alongside characters with newer, feat-giving backgrounds like those in the Strixhaven or the Dragonlance UA there would be little meaningful difference. So far a "players bring any 5e or OneD&D materials you want" game basically works. Let people swap out old Background Features for Level 1 feats and it works better.

I would call it a new edition in most contexts of the word "edition". Unfortunately D&D has a habit and history of calling almost completely incompatible games that are more like spiritual sequels new "editions", and this is not one of those.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Argyle King said:


> What's the reasoning behind critical hits only being for players?



Making balancing monsters easier and giving them more recharge abilities to function in a similar role as Crits do for PCs.


----------



## Blue

Benjamin Olson said:


> I don't see it as no longer compatible. You could play characters created under this playtest with current 5e rules with little issue (a few things, like the musician feat, wouldn't fit quite right). If you played them alongside characters made exclusively with the 2014 PHB the only radical difference would be that they have a feat instead of a mostly useless Background Feature. If you played them alongside characters with newer, feat-giving backgrounds like those in the Strixhaven or the Dragonlance UA there would be little meaningful difference. So far a "players bring any 5e or OneD&D materials you want" game basically works. Let people swap out old Background Features for Level 1 feats and it works better.



Which is why I didn't say that the math changed and you couldn't play them, I said that the character creation changed and you couldn't create the same characters anymore.  Please stay on topic and don't try to move the goalposts.

If there is just one arcane spell list, that means wizards and bards and artificers and sorcerers all have the same options, which will either be a huge list that includes much it didn't before, or there will be options you can no longer get.  And trust me, the bard spell list was very different in play than the wizard one.

With ability score modifiers move from races to backgrounds, then trying to recreate the same character could have radically different ability scores.

Some feats are changing, they gave examples of how Alert is different.

None of these changes are bad, but we have a precedent for this - a half edition.  3ed to 3.5ed.

But trying to say that it's all 'just D&D' and there are no editions is dishonest.  Implying that I can completely use my current PHB of the current edition and someone else can use their 2024 PHB of the current edition, and there will be no rule conflicts is dishonest.  This is not the same edition when you make significant changes to character creation/advancement, the mechanics that are central to every player.


----------



## roger semerad

I'm very excited about the Ardling.  An ancestry that can have any animal traits, or maybe even any combination of animal traits, is perfect for furries.  Having an ancestry like that showing up in the Player's Handbook is more than I could have hoped for.  It really increases the chances of being accepted into a gaming group when something is in the core books.

I've been very disinterested in 5th edition so far.  I'm one of the few who loved 4th, but the changes being made are at least making me consider playing 5th again.  It's the first time I've thought of D&D in a positive light for a while.  It's a nice feeling.


----------



## Argyle King

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Making balancing monsters easier and giving them more recharge abilities to function in a similar role as Crits do for PCs.




I'll reserve judgment until I see the implementation. 

My concern is that the monsters which are already bloated HP bags will be more-so in combats where there's literally zero chance of landing something to change a static battle. 

I support redesigning monsters. However, what I would like to see as part of that redesign would be a big enough departure to warrant an actual new edition.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Argyle King said:


> I'll reserve judgment until I see the implementation.



So am I. I was just explaining it how WotC did. 


Argyle King said:


> My concern is that the monsters which are already bloated HP bags will be more-so in combats where there's literally zero chance of landing something to change a static battle.



I share that concern. But, from what they said, it sounds like they're trying to make Recharge abilities be the main parts of dynamic boss monster fights. 


Argyle King said:


> I support redesigning monsters. However, what I would like to see as part of that redesign would be a big enough departure to warrant an actual new edition.



This isn't an actual new edition, though. And monster design has changed a bit since 2014 started, through Monsters of the Multiverse.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Blue said:


> Which is why I didn't say that the math changed and you couldn't play them, I said that the character creation changed and you couldn't create the same characters anymore. Please stay on topic and don't try to move the goalposts.



Disagreeing with you on what compatibility means is neither changing topic nor moving goalposts.

Since evidently you are the king of what is and is not the topic of this thread I will defer to your regal request, and go to a different one.


----------



## Retreater

Galandris said:


> Strangely I am not seeing it as "evolution" of D&D. It is just another product. Online play was useful at the time of covid but I fully expect not to spend the rest of my life unable to gather and play. I can see the use for people living in area where they can't find a group, but to me online play is a distinct activity from roleplaying in person. I can see WotC branching out to reach this (probably lucrative) market, but... even if it is microtransactioning I wouldn't be affected. I however fear they'd really consider this an "evolution" and drop the physical books going forward as they did with PDF. Well, "to fear" is a strong word: I consider I might not be interested in the offering they'd make as I won't pay for something linked to online play.



I think most of my playing will stay online for the foreseeable future. I'm in a small town and there's almost no interest in organized play or meeting at a game store with strangers. My peers are either busy doing other things or live too far away.
I hope that D&D continues to be supported without D&DBeyond and their Unity VTT. It seems too closely tied, too graphical, too "microtransaction-ly."
If not, I'll have no reason to follow, regardless if I love the changes.
This talk about specifically calling out D&DBeyond as the only online tools suggests pulling support from other VTTs.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> They've been trying to get people to do this since the launch of 5E, and we still have a situation where even half the DMs on this board, who are some of the most expert/experienced DMs, still profoundly do not get that the DEFAULT is "Custom", that "Custom" should be normal, and the fixed backgrounds are merely examples. Sheesh even with the DMs I play with, one of them was like "Wait you're using a custom background, is that allowed?!" and I'm like "Sigh...".



I think re-framing it the way we see in the UA will work much better. First, because it presents the exact rules for how to create a background _first_ and then presents the sample backgrounds as examples of backgrounds you can make with those rules, instead of presenting the samples first and then telling you “you can make changes to them if you want.” Second, because it standardizes backgrounds more - they all get one language, one tool instead of some getting two of one and none of the other, and the starting equipment is always worth 50 gold total. And third, because they got rid of bespoke background features and sample traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, which were difficult to invent from scratch.


----------



## Retreater

Argyle King said:


> What's the reasoning behind critical hits only being for players?



Because, as he (JC?) said in the video, critical hits can be scary and unpredictable - as if those are bad things in a game of thrilling action and adventure. 
Honestly, today's videos made me feel as excluded from the community and company as much as the 4e reveal did with the nerds in the basement confusing the Cheeto for a troll. (I think that's what happened anyway.)
Today's theme has been "our D&D is the proper D&D." There's been no effort to say "keep this stuff you liked" or "we're going to also support traditional play."
In short, very disappointed.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> Because, as he (JC?) said in the video, critical hits can be scary and unpredictable - as if those are bad things in a game of thrilling action and adventure.



That's not what he said. He said that they were expanding Recharge abilities for Monsters and using them to replace crits.


Retreater said:


> Honestly, today's videos made me feel as excluded from the community and company as much as the 4e reveal did with the nerds in the basement confusing the Cheeto for a troll. (I think that's what happened anyway.)
> Today's theme has been "our D&D is the proper D&D." There's been no effort to say "keep this stuff you liked" or "we're going to also support traditional play."
> In short, very disappointed.



You know all of this is _experimental_, right? The fact that they're experimenting with changing the rules up a bit is enough to exclude you? 

And, yes, they did say that you can keep the stuff you liked from original 5e. They explicitly state that in the playtest document. They state multiple times that a lot of the mechanics are up to the DM and players on how they use them (changed backgrounds and ASIs, for example).


----------



## Retreater

AcererakTriple6 said:


> That's not what he said. He said that they were expanding Recharge abilities for Monsters and using them to replace crits.



No. He gave the example of the existing recharge mechanic for a dragon's breath weapon and said nothing about it being applied to any other creatures. And he said "that's enough" and said more damage was "too scary."


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> No. He gave the example of the existing recharge mechanic for a dragon's breath weapon and said nothing about it being applied to any other creatures. And he said "that's enough" and said more damage was "too scary."



Do you have a timestamp?


----------



## Charlaquin

Blue said:


> Even if I like the changes they are making, they tainted it all by pretending it's not an edition change.  Removing all the spell lists, and seperating a primal, arcane and dine.  Cool move, but THAT'S A FREAKING BIG CHANGE.



I think people are jumping the gun on this. The video makes it clear that what they’re doing is giving spells one or more tags from arcane, divine, and primal so they can have magic initiate let you gain “an arcane, divine, or primal spell,” which is evergreen instead of “a spell from the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list” and having to make a new, similar feat for artificer spells or whatever other new thing comes out. But he did hint that classes will probably have other ways of gaining access to spells beyond these three general lists.


----------



## Retreater

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You know all of this is _experimental_, right? The fact that they're experimenting with changing the rules up a bit is enough to exclude you?



The assumed design philosophy behind the questions definitely shows I'm not on the same page.
Because rolling damage for monsters is "a lot of hard work."


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> So, the pillars of combat, role play, and exploration are clear to me since 5E launch. Im not sure how they translate here to;
> 
> What am I missing?



They’re both sets of three things. That’s really the only connection. It’s marketing mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Blue

Benjamin Olson said:


> Disagreeing with you on what compatibility means is neither changing topic nor moving goalposts.
> 
> Since evidently you are the king of what is and is not the topic of this thread I will defer to your regal request, and go to a different one.



Ah, personal attacks.  A last refuge when neither rhetoric nor facts will support a point.

When you reply to my comment, and ignore the point I made to make another point, you are in fact moving the goalposts.  You were and are perfectly free to just go to the end of a page and hit reply to respond to the post as a whole and present your opinion on what compatibility means.  _However, when you specifically pick a post and reply to it, what you type should be a response to the comment you are replying to._  This is common forum etiquette.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ath-kethin said:


> What I would.moat like to aee is subclasses at level one for all classes. In many respects, the delayed subclass is my single biggest tripe with 5e.
> 
> I'd also like to see more distinct and discrete spell lists for different classes, but it looks like maybe they're moving in that direction.
> 
> So I'm optimistic overall, as long as they still have printed books in addition to the digital stuff.



I was hopeful but not optimistic that this would be a thing. After seeing the UA though, it seems more likely to me that they’d be willing to experiment with a structural change like that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Argyle King said:


> What's the reasoning behind critical hits only being for players?



*What They Said:* recharge abilities already provide monsters with a way to create dramatic, scary moments like critical hits do, in a way that the DM has some degree of control over, but still has an element of randomness and surprise to it.

*What That Means:* Nobody wants to lose their 1st level character because of a random crit from an Ogre.


----------



## Blue

Charlaquin said:


> I think people are jumping the gun on this. The video makes it clear that what they’re doing is giving spells one or more tags from arcane, divine, and primal so they can have magic initiate let you gain “an arcane, divine, or primal spell,” which is evergreen instead of “a spell from the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list” and having to make a new, similar feat for artificer spells or whatever other new thing comes out. But he did hint that classes will probably have other ways of gaining access to spells beyond these three general lists.



Could be.  I hope you are right.  For example how the wizard list differed from the bard list gave the two a very different feel.

Still, character creation is changing in ways that some characters couldn't be recreated.  Moving the +2/+1 from racial (or floating) to defined by background now strongly links backgrounds to classes in ways that they weren't before.  I've had a weathermage (sailor sorcerer) and a swashbuckler (sailor dex fighter battlemaster) - the +2/+1 for the Sailor background can not apply in the two different ways I applied their racial mods.


----------



## Charlaquin

roger semerad said:


> I'm very excited about the Ardling.  An ancestry that can have any animal traits, or maybe even any combination of animal traits, is perfect for furries.  Having an ancestry like that showing up in the Player's Handbook is more than I could have hoped for.  It really increases the chances of being accepted into a gaming group when something is in the core books.
> 
> I've been very disinterested in 5th edition so far.  I'm one of the few who loved 4th, but the changes being made are at least making me consider playing 5th again.  It's the first time I've thought of D&D in a positive light for a while.  It's a nice feeling.



I would love a furry race in the PHB. But I would want such a race to actually have traits that made them feel like animal-people, instead of being able to grow spectral wings for a turn a couple times a day. Ardlings’ furry-hood is pure fluff, mechanically they’re just another version of Aasimar, and that to me is deeply dissatisfying.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Blue said:


> Ah, personal attacks.  A last refuge when neither rhetoric nor facts will support a point.
> 
> When you reply to my comment, and ignore the point I made to make another point, you are in fact moving the goalposts.  You were and are perfectly free to just go to the end of a page and hit reply to respond to the post as a whole and present your opinion on what compatibility means.  _However, when you specifically pick a post and reply to it, what you type should be a response to the comment you are replying to._  This is common forum etiquette.



I was taking issue with your condescending tone. Your response is clearly to just get much more condescending. Charming.


----------



## Argyle King

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So am I. I was just explaining it how WotC did.
> 
> I share that concern. But, from what they said, it sounds like they're trying to make Recharge abilities be the main parts of dynamic boss monster fights.
> 
> This isn't an actual new edition, though. And monster design has changed a bit since 2014 started, through Monsters of the Multiverse.




I've noticed changes. 

They're different than what I believe needs to be changed. I believe that the core design philosophy behind monsters and their role needs to be rethought. Doing that would require essentially rewriting the entire CR system and changing how encounters are designed.

I don't forsee that being possible in the context of 5e while retaining backwards compatibility.


----------



## Charlaquin

Blue said:


> Could be.  I hope you are right.  For example how the wizard list differed from the bard list gave the two a very different feel.
> 
> Still, character creation is changing in ways that some characters couldn't be recreated.  Moving the +2/+1 from racial (or floating) to defined by background now strongly links backgrounds to classes in ways that they weren't before.  I've had a weathermage (sailor sorcerer) and a swashbuckler (sailor dex fighter battlemaster) - the +2/+1 for the Sailor background can not apply in the two different ways I applied their racial mods.



Remember that they’re emphasizing create-your-own-background as the default and the pre-written backgrounds as examples (which isn’t really a change, because customizing your background has always been an option, but is a useful shift in emphasis). Yes, the example sailor background gives +2 Dex and +1 Wis, but if you want a background that gives +2 Cha and +1 Con or something but is otherwise identical to Sailor? You’re allowed - nay, encouraged, to do so. Or if you’re happy with the ASIs but would rather have Skilled instead of Tavern Brawler, or you’d rather get a hemp rope instead of a silk one and save the extra GP, or spend it on something else, or if you want to speak Elvish instead of Goblin, or... Ultimately, everyone gets a floating +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1,  two skills, a language, a tool, a 1st level feat, and 50 gp. Backgrounds are just flavorful pre-packaged sets of the above you can take if you don’t want to make all those choices yourself, or modify to your liking.


----------



## Azzy

Argyle King said:


> Doing that would require essentially rewriting the entire CR system and changing how encounters are designed.



I'm okay with that.


----------



## roger semerad

Charlaquin said:


> I would love a furry race in the PHB. But I would want such a race to actually have traits that made them feel like animal-people, instead of being able to grow spectral wings for a turn a couple times a day. Ardlings’ furry-hood is pure fluff, mechanically they’re just another version of Aasimar, and that to me is deeply dissatisfying.




I agree to an extent.  I'd personally much rather play a Tabaxi than an Ardling, but the Ardling supports a much wider array of furry concepts in a single entry than traditional races.  If the developers included traditional furry type races in the Player's Handbook the most I think we could expect would be a feline based one and a canine one.  With the amount of customization included into character creation already, combined with the open ended nature of the Ardling itself, most furry concepts can easily be created out of it.  I don't think we should be so focused on the perfect solution that we miss the massive increase in inclusiveness the Ardling represents.


----------



## Argyle King

Azzy said:


> I'm okay with that.




I would be too.


----------



## Charlaquin

roger semerad said:


> I agree to an extent.  I'd personally much rather play a Tabaxi than an Ardling, but the Ardling supports a much wider array of furry concepts in a single entry than traditional races.  If the developers included traditional furry type races in the Player's Handbook the most I think we could expect would be a feline based one and a canine one.  With the amount of customization included into character creation already, combined with the open ended nature of the Ardling itself, most furry concepts can easily be created out of it.  I don't think we should be so focused on the perfect solution that we miss the massive increase in inclusiveness the Ardling represents.



I get where you’re coming from, I just feel like the thematic link between anthros and the upper planes is weak, and the spectral wings feels so, so blatantly Aasimar. I’d much rather we got something like 4e’s hengeyokai for furry representation. That was a catch-all furry race that felt really thematically cohesive.


----------



## payn

_I read you in my Dragon mag back in '82
Lying awake, intent at tuning in on you
If I was young, it didn't stop you coming through
Oh-a, oh-a
They took the credit for your second campaign symphony
Rewritten by machine and new technology
And now I understand the problems you can see
Oh-a oh-a
I met your game group
Oh-a oh-a
What did you tell them?
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
3D Pictures came and broke your heart
Oh-a-a-a oh
And now we meet in an abandoned gaming studio
We hear the playback and it seems so long ago
And you remember the dice jingles used to go
Oh-a oh-a
You were the first one
Oh-a oh-a
You are the last one
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
In my theater of mind and in my car
We can't rewind, we've gone too far
Oh-a-aho oh
Oh-a-aho oh
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
In my theater of mind and in my car
We can't rewind, we've gone too far
3D Pictures came and broke your heart
Put the blame on VTT
You are a RPG star
You are a RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star
Digital killed the RPG star_


----------



## Paul3

So glad they gave me 5e, which brought me back to the game after a 30 year absence. I will continue to play the game/books I have, but will not be following to the "new edition."

And sorry, but in my game, goliaths will continue to have a strength advantage over halflings.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Charlaquin said:


> *What That Means:* Nobody wants to lose their 1st level character because of a random crit from an Ogre.



See, the thing is, that while I don't want to actually lose my character that way, I do really want to feel my character is at least a little at risk from that.

The real risk of basically any encounter ending you is, other than the sense of possibility and zero to hero potential, the main thing that keeps low level play compelling for me.

A more interesting alternative approach, given that they are revamping Inspiration, would be if players could spend their inspiration to cancel enemy crits.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

payn said:


> Digital killed the RPG star



I think "Digital killed the tabletop star" would be more accurate and scan better, but far be it from me to impugn an opus of this magnitude.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

The first AP I heard of 5e the GM and a few (maybe 4?) players were playing Phandelver. Spoilers to follow about the very first encounter.



Spoiler



In that module, the very first encounter is an ambush by some goblins. In the AP one of the goblins got a critical hit on the cleric or the mage and dropped him. Very soon thereafter, the rest of the party gets dropped, and as the wizard is running away gets an arrow in the back. TPK. All because of that first monster crit.



TPK is very much on the table at those early levels in any game, imho (except maybe not in Witchlight or other non-combat games). And one monster crit can definitely turn the tide and send an early 1st level encounter into TPK territory.

_However_, I have noticed that by 3rd level when all characters have their subclass; and definitely by 5th level when spellcasters get access to 3rd level spells - at that point PCs are pretty super-heroic, and you'd really need to send them into a pretty high CR encounter or they would have to be pretty depleted to get a TPK.

_On the other hand_, my players learned how to navigate through the world when they were little 1st level fragiliings. Which means they tend to be overly tentative. I mean, TPK is not my goal; but sometimes I'd wish more action and less faffing.

So, I'm willing to try no crits for monsters and then if it's not working, maybe I'll just add it up to PC level 3 or so. Or maybe CR1 monsters and below can't crit, but higher CR monsters can. No matter, can always house rule something.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Then keep full spell lists. You have the old version. They're changing it to make it easier for new players. You're not a new player, so use the old version of you like it.
> 
> "Homogenized damage types"? What does that even mean? I don't know what you're talking about for changes to senses, either. And "spell but not a spell" actions have been a part of 5e since the very beginning. Monsters have always had access to magical abilities that PCs don't get access to. Mind Flayers, Aboleths, and other monsters, for example.



Actual spellcasters didn't have them, at least not much.

My comment on damage types refers to them changing damage from natural weapons to be various forms of magic damage, but still having it narratively represent claws and fangs.  How does that work exactly?

As for the senses, they replaced various bonuses to different checks related to having keen hearing or smell to a simple Perception increase.  I generally don't like it when things become less granular, even if it makes them stronger.


----------



## Justice and Rule

payn said:


> _I read you in my Dragon mag back in '82
> Lying awake, intent at tuning in on you
> If I was young, it didn't stop you coming through
> Oh-a, oh-a
> They took the credit for your second campaign symphony
> Rewritten by machine and new technology
> And now I understand the problems you can see
> Oh-a oh-a
> I met your game group
> Oh-a oh-a
> What did you tell them?
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> 3D Pictures came and broke your heart
> Oh-a-a-a oh
> And now we meet in an abandoned gaming studio
> We hear the playback and it seems so long ago
> And you remember the dice jingles used to go
> Oh-a oh-a
> You were the first one
> Oh-a oh-a
> You are the last one
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> In my theater of mind and in my car
> We can't rewind, we've gone too far
> Oh-a-aho oh
> Oh-a-aho oh
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> In my theater of mind and in my car
> We can't rewind, we've gone too far
> 3D Pictures came and broke your heart
> Put the blame on VTT
> You are a RPG star
> You are a RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star_




Good, but you should have gone with Tabletop Star.


----------



## OakenHart

I'm just going to throw out that my young nephews/nieces do a lot of socializing with each other and kids their age over VR.  A lot of this digital stuff isn't aimed at us necessarily.  I'd be surprised if whatever they're doing for the VTT isn't eventually worked to allow for some sort of interaction in VR in the future.

I don't see anything about any of this that prohibits playing this "the traditional way".  It's just expanding options and future proofing for how younger folks may want to get into playing the game.

SIDE-NOTE: I'm loving a lot of what they're proposing for the new not-new edition, especially the background and feat changes.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Retreater said:


> too "microtransaction-ly."



I say without a hint of proof that these even exist.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Eyes of Nine said:


> The first AP I heard of 5e the GM and a few (maybe 4?) players were playing Phandelver. Spoilers to follow about the very first encounter.
> 
> In that module, the very first encounter is an ambush by some goblins. In the AP one of the goblins got a critical hit on the cleric or the mage and dropped him. Very soon thereafter, the rest of the party gets dropped, and as the wizard is running away gets an arrow in the back. TPK. All because of that first monster crit.
> TPK is very much on the table at those early levels in any game, imho (except maybe not in Witchlight or other non-combat games). And one monster crit can definitely turn the tide and send an early 1st level encounter into TPK territory.




My very first group also got dropped in that first encounter. But there were no crits involved, as I recall at least. It was mainly an issue of them thinking it was the "go kill some sewer rats" first tutorial encounter of every video game, combined with the enemy using basic cover tactics while the players didn't really know how to use their characters yet.

I think no monster crits is nonsense game design. The issue isn't that it is inherently bad design numbers-wise, the issue is that it runs counter to the role the d20 has in D&D culture and the intuitive way people use it and want to use it. It's weird that they bowed to this pressure in finally making nat 20s and 1s magic on all player d20 rolls and yet in the very same document think they can get people to stop having monsters crit on a 20. The result will be many if not most tables having the monsters crit on 20s anyway, on top of whatever new abilities they give monsters to compensate for no crits and the deadliness of low levels being amplified.

 I think a better approach to dampening the deadliness of the lowest levels (if you want to do that), would be to attack the real problem, which is the "enough damage to do max hp below zero kills you outright" rule. I love this rule in principle, but in actual play it only kills low level characters, and causes a lot of confusion for new players since negative hit points are otherwise not a thing in 5e. It is simply a special, tier one play only, abrupt death rule.

They could also attack the other problem, which is that the simplest health potion is far beyond the means of a level 1 character. I see the value in making them less than plentiful, but perhaps one should be standard starting equipment, or perhaps they should be plentiful but burn hit dice.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Actual spellcasters didn't have them, at least not much.



Sure they did. All of the Drow Mages had special abilities before Monsters of the Multiverse, as did the Volo's Mages, and the ones from the adventures. The Mage and Archmage from the Monster Manual didn't . . . but quite a lot of the other mages did. 


Micah Sweet said:


> My comment on damage types refers to them changing damage from natural weapons to be various forms of magic damage, but still having it narratively represent claws and fangs.  How does that work exactly?



Magic. It's magic. They only do it on the attacks that were magic before, so the changed damage types is the representation of the magic. 


Micah Sweet said:


> As for the senses, they replaced various bonuses to different checks related to having keen hearing or smell to a simple Perception increase.  I generally don't like it when things become less granular, even if it makes them stronger.



So . . . very few monsters in the book that actually had Keen Sense had a sentence removed in favor for just proficiency in Perception. That's an extremely minor change to the monsters that seems like it's so minor that most DMs wouldn't even notice it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> See, the thing is, that while I don't want to actually lose my character that way, I do really want to feel my character is at least a little at risk from that.
> 
> The real risk of basically any encounter ending you is, other than the sense of possibility and zero to hero potential, the main thing that keeps low level play compelling for me.



Hey, I hear you. I’m actually in the same boat. But I recognize that my preference in that matter is not aligned with the majority of the 5e playing community’s. I think monsters not critting is probably the better design choice _for 5e_ (though it wouldn’t be for some other systems). Though, I also very much doubt it’s going to make it through playtesting because I think people generally like the _idea_ of crits more than they dislike the effect they have on gameplay, and part of that idea is the symmetry between PCs and monsters.


Benjamin Olson said:


> A more interesting alternative approach, given that they are revamping Inspiration, would be if players could spend their inspiration to cancel enemy crits.



That’d be cool.


----------



## Akrasia

I don't like feats at all and don't use them in my 5e Greyhawk campaign. So I'm disappointed that they now seem to be no longer optional in the play test document.

Likewise, I don't like inspiration and don't use it in my game. But it now seems to be required for humans at least.

I use some modest tweaks (no feats, no inspiration, no dragonborn or tieflings, etc.) to maintain an "old school" and moderately "gritty" feel to my games. I'm concerned that this may be harder to do in 5.5e. But perhaps my worries will prove unfounded.

Of course, I can just house rule what I like, stick with "my version" of 5e, etc.


----------



## antiwesley

Charlaquin said:


> But I recognize that my preference in that matter is not aligned with the majority of the 5e playing community’s.



It's not the community you're not aligned with, it's WoTC's desire to make more money on an older product. 
One thing I heard mentioned was that "you can still use adventures from X years ago." 

Before long, adventures will be treated like card sets in Magic: The Money Pit. If the adventure you want to play uses out-moded rules or cannot be adapted to the modern setup, you'll have to play it on a table, not their virtual scam setup. 

I also took great offense at being labeled a "lazy DM" as they seem to believe most DM's are. 
Having been a retailer back during the 4th Ed push, I sat and listened to WOTC roll out blather after blather about 
stuff 'they' were doing to promote and build up the new edition. It mainly involved them doing things in Seattle, and there was NOTHING to help the retailers themselves. I sat there and wasted 6 minutes of my life listening to today's pablum pukers spew out the same type of garbage that I heard others spew with 4th Ed. 

It's all part of the current mindset when someone takes over an established product. We see it in TV shows, movie franchises, books, and yes, even RPGs. The current team wants to make the product THEIR product. This isn't Gary and Dave's DnD, this is whomever the current generation of, as William Gaines once put it, "the usual gang of idiots." 

Don't like it? Don't use it. 

But don't be surprised in a year or two when none of this product will be available in a dead tree format. 
Don't use electronics at the table? Learn to use it now, or else you'll be left behind, sucker!

I pity the generation that will be suckled on this new teat, for when the power is off or the Internet is down, they won't have two d6 to rub together and even know how to play on a tabletop. 

And like fools, many will suckle at this new teat, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, and they don't know how they ever lived without it. We call them "suck ups" or "consumer zombies." 
3rd Ed was the greatest thing since sliced bread until 4th came along, then that was the hot sh!t. Then 4th Ed was 'too simple' when 5th Ed was released, and now "One DnD" is going to be the ham-fisted hot buttered bob until they can't make any cash from it, and 6th ed will be introduced.


----------



## Azzy

antiwesley said:


> It's not the community you're not aligned with, it's WoTC's desire to make more money on an older product.
> One thing I heard mentioned was that "you can still use adventures from X years ago."
> 
> Before long, adventures will be treated like card sets in Magic: The Money Pit. If the adventure you want to play uses out-moded rules or cannot be adapted to the modern setup, you'll have to play it on a table, not their virtual scam setup.
> 
> I also took great offense at being labeled a "lazy DM" as they seem to believe most DM's are.
> Having been a retailer back during the 4th Ed push, I sat and listened to WOTC roll out blather after blather about
> stuff 'they' were doing to promote and build up the new edition. It mainly involved them doing things in Seattle, and there was NOTHING to help the retailers themselves. I sat there and wasted 6 minutes of my life listening to today's pablum pukers spew out the same type of garbage that I heard others spew with 4th Ed.
> 
> It's all part of the current mindset when someone takes over an established product. We see it in TV shows, movie franchises, books, and yes, even RPGs. The current team wants to make the product THEIR product. This isn't Gary and Dave's DnD, this is whomever the current generation of, as William Gaines once put it, "the usual gang of idiots."
> 
> Don't like it? Don't use it.
> 
> But don't be surprised in a year or two when none of this product will be available in a dead tree format.
> Don't use electronics at the table? Learn to use it now, or else you'll be left behind, sucker!
> 
> I pity the generation that will be suckled on this new teat, for when the power is off or the Internet is down, they won't have two d6 to rub together and even know how to play on a tabletop.
> 
> And like fools, many will suckle at this new teat, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, and they don't know how they ever lived without it. We call them "suck ups" or "consumer zombies."
> 3rd Ed was the greatest thing since sliced bread until 4th came along, then that was the hot sh!t. Then 4th Ed was 'too simple' when 5th Ed was released, and now "One DnD" is going to be the ham-fisted hot buttered bob until they can't make any cash from it, and 6th ed will be introduced.



You sound bitter.


----------



## reelo

Azzy said:


> You sound bitter.



I dunno, they sound realist to me.


----------



## vecna00

I'm good with all of this. Except the name. I do not like that name.


----------



## Azzy

reelo said:


> I dunno, they sound realist to me.



To you. Not to me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Blue said:


> Yes, like what happened with the change from 3.0 to 3.5.
> 
> Once you can have characters that no longer can be created by the system, it's at least a half edition shift.



No such thing is present in the new UA. 


Blue said:


> If there is just one arcane spell list, that means wizards and bards and artificers and sorcerers all have the same options, which will either be a huge list that includes much it didn't before, or there will be options you can no longer get.  And trust me, the bard spell list was very different in play than the wizard one.



This is a conclusion you are jumping to, not something present in the actual playtest document. 


Blue said:


> With ability score modifiers move from races to backgrounds, then trying to recreate the same character could have radically different ability scores.



This isn’t a thing. ASI’s are chosen as the first step of making your background. Your character will have the same ability scores unless you choose otherwise. 


Blue said:


> Some feats are changing, they gave examples of how Alert is different.
> 
> None of these changes are bad, but we have a precedent for this - a half edition.  3ed to 3.5ed.



Because some feats might be rewritten? 


Blue said:


> But trying to say that it's all 'just D&D' and there are no editions is dishonest.  Implying that I can completely use my current PHB of the current edition and someone else can use their 2024 PHB of the current edition, and there will be no rule conflicts is dishonest.



But you…can. 


Blue said:


> This is not the same edition when you make significant changes to character creation/advancement, the mechanics that are central to every player.



Literally the only difference that actually has any effect on a group is that one PC will have a level 1 feat. That’s it. So just, add level 1 feats to characters using older options. 





Blue said:


> Moving the +2/+1 from racial (or floating) to defined by background now strongly links backgrounds to classes in ways that they weren't before.



No. That isn’t what is happening. 


Paul3 said:


> So glad they gave me 5e, which brought me back to the game after a 30 year absence. I will continue to play the game/books I have, but will not be following to the "new edition."
> 
> And sorry, but in my game, goliaths will continue to have a strength advantage over halflings.



Okay. 

Why are you “sorry”? Do you think people are upset about it? 

I assure you, absolutely no one is bothered.


----------



## JDR

vecna00 said:


> I'm good with all of this. Except the name. I do not like that name.



It's just a code name, like D&D Next was.


----------



## vecna00

JDR said:


> It's just a code name, like D&D Next was.



I hope so, but sometimes it sticks.


----------



## John R Davis

I hope monsters at least do "something" on a 20, maybe each entry has one or two minor extra cool things.
It's a d20 game! Give the GM some joy at rolling one!

Too scary! Really???


----------



## Mallus

Azzy said:


> You sound bitter.



And cliched.


----------



## Paul3

doctorbadwolf said:


> No such thing is present in the new UA.
> 
> This is a conclusion you are jumping to, not something present in the actual playtest document.
> 
> This isn’t a thing. ASI’s are chosen as the first step of making your background. Your character will have the same ability scores unless you choose otherwise.
> 
> Because some feats might be rewritten?
> 
> But you…can.
> 
> Literally the only difference that actually has any effect on a group is that one PC will have a level 1 feat. That’s it. So just, add level 1 feats to characters using older options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. That isn’t what is happening.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Why are you “sorry”? Do you think people are upset about it?
> 
> I assure you, absolutely no one is bothered.




Shouldn't all businesses be worried about losing a customer? If I owned a business, I sure would.


----------



## Paul3

OakenHart said:


> I'm just going to throw out that my young nephews/nieces do a lot of socializing with each other and kids their age over VR.  A lot of this digital stuff isn't aimed at us necessarily.  I'd be surprised if whatever they're doing for the VTT isn't eventually worked to allow for some sort of interaction in VR in the future.
> 
> I don't see anything about any of this that prohibits playing this "the traditional way".  It's just expanding options and future proofing for how younger folks may want to get into playing the game.
> 
> SIDE-NOTE: I'm loving a lot of what they're proposing for the new not-new edition, especially the background and feat changes.




As someone who runs game groups for children, the biggest appeal to the game IMO is NOT having them using technology for something in their lives.  I realize that they are just looking to expand their monetary footprint, as is there right as a business, but I think we are losing something greater. My games have no phones, no digital character sheets, no virtual tabletops....just a bunch of kids sitting around the table talking to each other. I realize that the game will still be able to played this way, but with more and more access to digital content, I think that is where most young people will lean, which will be a shame.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

antiwesley said:


> And like fools, many will suckle at this new teat, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, and they don't know how they ever lived without it. We call them "suck ups" or "consumer zombies."



*Mod Note:*

It’s perfectly fine to criticize the possible changes to the game, as well as the company & designers who may make those changes real.  But when you start slinging insults around like this, you move from “Old Man Yelling at Clouds” into “Problematic Poster” territory.

Dial it back a bit.  Thanks.


----------



## Hussar

Yay. Called it. WotC bringing out a dedicated DnD vtt. Yayyyy. Gonna ride that train as soon as I can.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

It occurs to me that the Ardling is a hint that Guardinals, Celestial none MtG Archons, and maybe Lillends are returning to D&D, either in One D&D or Planescape.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Corinnguard said:


> The Aasimars have been the celestial counterpart of the Tieflings since 2e D&D came out with the Planescape setting. So I am not sure what this article is getting at by saying the Ardlings are being designed to fit that very role. However, considering that WoTC is also developing Abyssal and Cthonic variants of the Tieflings, maybe the Aasimars are getting the same treatment? If so, the Ardlings could be Aasimars of Guardinal origin.
> 
> Btw, WoTC is late to the table with regards to creating variants of the Tieflings and the Aasimars. Pathfinder 1st edition has 6 Aasimar heritages and 10 Tiefling heritages.




 Honestly they should just make this the Aasimar, with Ardlings a side bar as a flavour variant for Planestouched races like Tieflings, Aasimar, and Genasi.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

antiwesley said:


> It's not the community you're not aligned with, it's WoTC's desire to make more money on an older product.
> One thing I heard mentioned was that "you can still use adventures from X years ago."
> 
> Before long, adventures will be treated like card sets in Magic: The Money Pit. If the adventure you want to play uses out-moded rules or cannot be adapted to the modern setup, you'll have to play it on a table, not their virtual scam setup.
> 
> I also took great offense at being labeled a "lazy DM" as they seem to believe most DM's are.
> Having been a retailer back during the 4th Ed push, I sat and listened to WOTC roll out blather after blather about
> stuff 'they' were doing to promote and build up the new edition. It mainly involved them doing things in Seattle, and there was NOTHING to help the retailers themselves. I sat there and wasted 6 minutes of my life listening to today's pablum pukers spew out the same type of garbage that I heard others spew with 4th Ed.
> 
> It's all part of the current mindset when someone takes over an established product. We see it in TV shows, movie franchises, books, and yes, even RPGs. The current team wants to make the product THEIR product. This isn't Gary and Dave's DnD, this is whomever the current generation of, as William Gaines once put it, "the usual gang of idiots."
> 
> Don't like it? Don't use it.
> 
> But don't be surprised in a year or two when none of this product will be available in a dead tree format.
> Don't use electronics at the table? Learn to use it now, or else you'll be left behind, sucker!
> 
> I pity the generation that will be suckled on this new teat, for when the power is off or the Internet is down, they won't have two d6 to rub together and even know how to play on a tabletop.
> 
> And like fools, many will suckle at this new teat, and claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, and they don't know how they ever lived without it. We call them "suck ups" or "consumer zombies."
> 3rd Ed was the greatest thing since sliced bread until 4th came along, then that was the hot sh!t. Then 4th Ed was 'too simple' when 5th Ed was released, and now "One DnD" is going to be the ham-fisted hot buttered bob until they can't make any cash from it, and 6th ed will be introduced.




 There is too much money selling paper books to go exclusive digital. People said MtG was just going to digital, but MtG still makes most of it's money for paper products. Digital's maybe 20% of MtG's income.

 Much more likely is a greater focus on collectable versions of books, like limited editions all blinged out, gold edge pages, new art, etc..., new slipcases, etc...


----------



## Yora

Hussar said:


> Yay. Called it. WotC bringing out a dedicated DnD vtt. Yayyyy. Gonna ride that train as soon as I can.



You would think that with enough time, enough people would have been replaced and there might actually be a shot at getting such a thing to market.

But the ghost of Gleemax might never fully rest.


----------



## Galandris

JDR said:


> It's just a code name, like D&D Next was.




And Level Up was.



John R Davis said:


> I hope monsters at least do "something" on a 20, maybe each entry has one or two minor extra cool things.
> It's a d20 game! Give the GM some joy at rolling one!
> 
> Too scary! Really???




Especially when non-lethal damage is so easy to impart in 5e that killing people is a conscious action by not just wanting to inflict non-lethal damage. If GM rolls a 20, make big damages and decides he wanted to do lethal with his wolf bite, instead of declaring "you're knocked out", its his choice.


----------



## John R Davis

Galandris said:


> And Level Up was.
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when non-lethal damage is so easy to impart in 5e that killing people is a conscious action by not just wanting to inflict non-lethal damage. If GM rolls a 20, make big damages and decides he wanted to do lethal with his wolf bite, instead of declaring "you're knocked out", its his choice.



Was thinking an a 20 the monster can do normal damage plus for example:
-Recharge a power.
-Add extra damage based on its Str mod.
-Move.
-Get an extra attack.
-Cast a cantrip 

That sort of thing.


----------



## TrickyDUK2

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Making balancing monsters easier and giving them more recharge abilities to function in a similar role as Crits do for PCs.



But DMs deserve to get that feeling of elation when they role a natural 20.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Paul3 said:


> Shouldn't all businesses be worried about losing a customer? If I owned a business, I sure would.



It's all about volume.  If they gain more customers than they lose, the ones they lose don't matter.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> It's all about volume.  If they gain more customers than they lose, the ones they lose don't matter.



For businesses with small numbers of customers, or for businesses where the volume of business varies absolutely vastly between customers, losing a single customer can be significantly more of a concern.

However, the way WotC are operating you are definitely correct - it's primarily about volume, rather than whether you're losing customers. I do think WotC is increasingly trying to target customers who do more business even if they don't actually play the game more though, which is I think somewhat novel, because whilst it happened in previous eras of RPGs, I believe it was largely accidental, and there was no sacrificing of playability in order to push collectability, whereas I think the "three volume" format of Spelljammer and the upcoming Planescape shows a very clear and intentional decision to make a product that's significantly more attractive to collectors and lifestylers, but that is undeniably less usable as a result (c.f. even the more positive SJ reviews which have noted that it feels incomplete). For the same amount of costs to WotC, they could probably have dropped a 256+ page hardback (maybe even 320+ page) as 3x 64-page hardbacks + slip + tchotchkes. And to DMs and players that book would inevitably have had more utility. But could they have charged as much for it, i.e. had the same profit margin? Perhaps not. And would non-playing collectors/lifestylers been so keen on it? Nope.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Weiley31 said:


> So, the Ardling is basically the celestial version of the Tiefling? Strange, the Assimar was pretty much supposed to be that technically. Then again, I know there are beast celestials and what not so the Ardling could represent those with the Assimar still being the Assimar.




 The Ardling is just a variant Aasimar, I suggest just making this the Aasimar and making animal headed options for Tieflings, Aasimar, and Genasi. I mean a Vulture headed (Vrock) Abyssal Tieflings, Insectiod headed Infernal Tieflings (Ice Devil, Cat Headed Infernal Tieflings (Hell Cats & Rakshasa), Jackal headed Cthonthic Tieflings (Arcanoloths), Salamander Headed Fire Genasi (Salamanders), Serpent headed Air Genasi (Thunder Serpent Primordial), etc...

 There is no reason Ardlings fit Celestials more then Fiends and Elementals.

 I mean how cool would a Goat headed Abyssal Tiefling looking like Occult Bahumet (not D&D Bahumet) be?

 Will anyone support me on this issue come survey time?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Halflings need a buff, Dragonborn's breath should be a bonus action.


----------



## halfling rogue

Yora said:


> You would think that with enough time, enough people would have been replaced and there might actually be a shot at getting such a thing to market.
> 
> But the ghost of Gleemax might never fully rest.



I remember when the concept of Gleemax was first introduced and me and my buddies were so excited and talked through all the new possibilities...

Now whenever I think of online D&D I instantly think of Gleemax and don't get very excited about it...


----------



## Argyle King

I think it's cool that the people who want digital tools will get them. 

For the people (like myself) who prefer sitting down with friends at a table and doing things analog, what does D&D76 do to improve the experience?


----------



## Blue

doctorbadwolf said:


> No such thing is present in the new UA.



Please, take my wood elf hermit monk and rebuild him mechanically the same using the UA.  Ability score modifiers in the same place*.  Mask of the Wild wood elf subrace feature to hide.  Same Discovery hermit feature.   Longbow proficiency for a good ranged option.

*I understand that I can give up my background, create a custom background that covers the exact same narrative space as an existing background, and shift around the ability score modifiers.  *That still is a change.*   And also doesn't grant me the feature, some of which like our Urchin in a Ravnica game I played where quick travel through a city gets used every session.  And it does grant me a feat, which is *also a change.*

Literally every single section presented in the UA can and usually does differ from the existing character.

I'm not saying any of it is bad.  I'm also not saying a 2014 PHB character can't adventure alongside a 2024 character.  What I said is that you can't recreate the same character and have the mechanics match.  _This isn't debatable, the mechanics in the document differ from the PHB._  Trying to say they don't is ignorance or a baldfaced lie.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My suggestion is. 

The virtual miniatures can work as "virtual avatars" of the players, at least because some streamers would use it to create machinima version of their actual-play shows. 

Other option is to can "solo games" based in quests created by other players. It would work in a way close to the old gamebooks style "Endless Quest" or "Choose your own adventure".


----------



## Micah Sweet

Argyle King said:


> I think it's cool that the people who want digital tools will get them.
> 
> For the people (like myself) who prefer sitting down with friends at a table and doing things analog, what does D&D76 do to improve the experience?



Nothing. You're not the target audience.


----------



## Xohar17

Mallus said:


> I like the expanded role of backgrounds and starting feat. It's a little bit of classic Traveller chargen (with the chance of death removed).



But that part (the chance of death) was the most fun part.


----------



## Xohar17

Benjamin Olson said:


> I was taking issue with your condescending tone. Your response is clearly to just get much more condescending. Charming.



I mean, yours were condescending too.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Xohar17 said:


> I mean, yours were condescending too.



Huh, well I was going for more sarcastic than condescending, after feeling condescended to, but I suppose we don't always hit our targets in these games of words. 

In any case, I blocked him. Lecture me once, probably shame on me, lecture me twice, you had better be a moderator.


----------



## Umbran

Benjamin Olson said:


> Huh, well I was going for more sarcastic than condescending,




*Mod Note:*
So, you publicly admit to engaging in problematic discourse.  That makes my job easier.



Benjamin Olson said:


> Lecture me once, probably shame on me, lecture me twice, you had better be a moderator.




Hi there!  You rang?

*How about EVERYONE here remember that respect will be the word of the day pretty much forever, and that if you treat folks badly, you are going to end up locked out of discussions*.


----------



## TwoSix

Blue said:


> I'm not saying any of it is bad.  I'm also not saying a 2014 PHB character can't adventure alongside a 2024 character.  What I said is that you can't recreate the same character and have the mechanics match.  _This isn't debatable, the mechanics in the document differ from the PHB._  Trying to say they don't is ignorance or a baldfaced lie.



I mean, you're right, but I'm just struggling to see why that matters.  There's two ways to make a wood elf, the 2014 way and 2024 way.  Both are relatively balanced, and both can be played at the same table.


----------



## Umbran

Blue said:


> Trying to say they don't is ignorance or a baldfaced lie.



*Mod Note:*

You know what else isn't debatable?  Whether or not you are correct, calling people ignorant or bald-faced liars poisons them against the actual content of your post.  By adding in the insult, you turn the point of interest away from the facts, and towards the fact that you just called them liars.

So next time, resist the urge.  It isn't working for you, and if continued will end badly.


----------



## Umbran

*Folks,

Please be aware - we have gone through edition changes before.  We are going to require people remain civil. 

Taking your fervor out on your fellow posters is not going to end well for you.  Learn that now, because there's a long haul ahead.*


----------



## caudor

I'm trying to decide whether to slow down on my Fantasy Grounds purchases since WotC is bringing in a new VTT.  It seems like it might still be a long way off though.  Also, DMsguild has hooked up with Roll20, which adds another dimension to the dilemma.  I'll still be able to play my current content on FG, but the future of VTTs is cloudy at this point.


----------



## Jimmy Dick

payn said:


> _I read you in my Dragon mag back in '82
> Lying awake, intent at tuning in on you
> If I was young, it didn't stop you coming through
> Oh-a, oh-a
> They took the credit for your second campaign symphony
> Rewritten by machine and new technology
> And now I understand the problems you can see
> Oh-a oh-a
> I met your game group
> Oh-a oh-a
> What did you tell them?
> Digital killed the RPG star
> Digital killed the RPG star
> 3D Pictures came and broke your heart_



Nope. Not even close. Digital helped to save the RPG star during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, live play is once again what the majority of the players want. Digital is great for a pretty decent sized number of people who meet one or more of the following conditions:
1. Live in rural area with few to no players within a 30 minute drive. 
2. Physically handicapped to the point where reaching a store is extremely difficult to do and in some cases actually dangerous to you.
3. Socially awkward/inept individuals who are unable to play in a live setting. Often they are able to play online and in some cases begin to overcome the issues that prevent them from playing in a live setting.
4. Transportation problems regardless of physical environment.
5. Friends/family players who were part of your group have moved away beyond their or your ability to physically play together. Digital gives your group the ability to continue to play together and stay connected. You can still play live and meet new players at your local venue too.
6. Experience a greater number of people around the globe who share common interests. It is wonderful to meet new people, share similar experiences, learn different things, and enjoy the game everyone at the table enjoys.

I'm sure there are more conditions that others may have for why they play digitally. Digital play enabled a lot of groups to continue on during the pandemic. For Pathfinder and Starfinder, this was critical to their Organized Play campaigns. They survived and even thrived thanks to the digital access. Again, now that the pandemic is over, many of those players have returned or are returning to live play. We even gained some players as a result of the digital environment as a result who are now in our live groups rolling the d20!

Digital play is an asset which helps to expand RPG play both live and online.


----------



## payn

Jimmy Dick said:


> Nope. Not even close. Digital helped to save the RPG star during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, live play is once again what the majority of the players want. Digital is great for a pretty decent sized number of people who meet one or more of the following conditions:
> 1. Live in rural area with few to no players within a 30 minute drive.
> 2. Physically handicapped to the point where reaching a store is extremely difficult to do and in some cases actually dangerous to you.
> 3. Socially awkward/inept individuals who are unable to play in a live setting. Often they are able to play online and in some cases begin to overcome the issues that prevent them from playing in a live setting.
> 4. Transportation problems regardless of physical environment.
> 5. Friends/family players who were part of your group have moved away beyond their or your ability to physically play together. Digital gives your group the ability to continue to play together and stay connected. You can still play live and meet new players at your local venue too.
> 6. Experience a greater number of people around the globe who share common interests. It is wonderful to meet new people, share similar experiences, learn different things, and enjoy the game everyone at the table enjoys.
> 
> I'm sure there are more conditions that others may have for why they play digitally. Digital play enabled a lot of groups to continue on during the pandemic. For Pathfinder and Starfinder, this was critical to their Organized Play campaigns. They survived and even thrived thanks to the digital access. Again, now that the pandemic is over, many of those players have returned or are returning to live play. We even gained some players as a result of the digital environment as a result who are now in our live groups rolling the d20!
> 
> Digital play is an asset which helps to expand RPG play both live and online.



Not according to many on these very forums. Folks cant get anybody to show up for face to face. I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords.


----------



## Hussar

payn said:


> Not according to many on these very forums. Folks cant get anybody to show up for face to face. I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords.



I mean, heck, try having small children.  Or anyone who has an odd work schedule.  All I hear, over and over, and have heard, for years, is laments about how people can't play regularly and only get together once a month or once ever two weeks.  

I've gamed pretty much weekly, sometimes twice a week, for the past twenty years.  Rarely missed a week.  I could game more if I wanted to and had the time.  The fact that I have a bizarre work schedule means that face to face gaming is pretty much straight out the window.  

I've never understood the hostility about online gaming.  If you don't want to do it, that's groovy.  Totally fine.  No skin off my nose.  But, why people seem to feel the need to poo poo it as "inferior" or whatever just baffles me.  If it wasn't for online gaming, I'd have left the hobby decades ago.  (YAY, good riddance ya bastard! - you be quiet back there)  Online is a fantastic way to game.  I really don't see the problem.


----------



## MNblockhead

Overall I'm feeling good about this. A better organized DM's guide would alone make me buy the new one. More evergreen organization of class spell lists is a good move--though I wish they would make the schools of magic more clear, distinct, and obvious.  I like that you have more options to roll your own character origins, though I do hope that they keep standard, traditional templates as an option for those who want more traditional race and class combos. 

As for the VTT, hmm.  Will have to wait and see. I'm a cynic with VTTs.  I run my games exclusively online these days and have used a lot of different VTTs over the last five or so years. Have yet to find the goldilocks VTT for 5e. What they showed looks kinda neat, and I could see running a WotC advanture all prepped for it.  But that type of 3D visuals will make it hard to just throw up a map and play. I imagine it would take more prep time than I care to expend to run third-party and home-brew adventures in it.  Also, what I really want more than anything in a VTT, who would REALLY help this lazy dungeon master, is easy, smooth, rules-compliant automations of tracking buffs and conditions, applying area-of-effect spells and automating the saves and damage, tracking spell durations, prompting concentration checks, etc. 

I'm not getting my hopes up with the VTT, but I'll keep my eyes on it. I AM worried that with their own VTT that WotC may try to make it much more difficult to import your DnD Beyond content into other VTTs or to buy official WotC content in other VTTs.  I hope they compete on the quality, features, and performance of their own VTT rather than on making it the only place to easily get official content legally in a VTT.


----------



## Dire Bare

And thus, the ancient conflict known as the Edition Wars was rekindled. Warriors chose their sides and flamed their enemies with vitriol and bile. And the gods wept, because all they wanted was for the people to play games together and have fun.


----------



## Chaosmancer

beancounter said:


> When everyone is a superhero, no one is a superhero.
> 
> But seriously, it's just making an easy game even easier.




Good thing I don't make NPCs superheroes. The fighter can totally take the blacksmith and the sheriff at the same time.


----------



## payn

Dire Bare said:


> And thus, the ancient conflict known as the Edition Wars was rekindled. Warriors chose their sides and flamed their enemies with vitriol and bile. And the gods wept, because all they wanted was for the people to play games together and have fun.



Wrong war, this one is about technology.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Blue said:


> Please, take my wood elf hermit monk and rebuild him mechanically the same using the UA.  Ability score modifiers in the same place*.



Easy. Choose the same ASIs. That is literally the default option in the new options. 


Blue said:


> Mask of the Wild wood elf subrace feature to hide.  Same Discovery hermit feature.   Longbow proficiency for a good ranged option.



Sure, if you pick the new wood elf you’ll get some spells instead. So…don’t, if you prefer the other set of features. 


Blue said:


> *I understand that I can give up my background, create a custom background that covers the exact same narrative space as an existing background, and shift around the ability score modifiers.  *That still is a change.*



It’s the default.


Blue said:


> And also doesn't grant me the feature, some of which like our Urchin in a Ravnica game I played where quick travel through a city gets used every session.  And it does grant me a feat, which is *also a change.*



So, you’re describing a new option. 


Blue said:


> Literally every single section presented in the UA can and usually does differ from the existing character.
> 
> I'm not saying any of it is bad.  I'm also not saying a 2014 PHB character can't adventure alongside a 2024 character.  What I said is that you can't recreate the same character and have the mechanics match.  _This isn't debatable, the mechanics in the document differ from the PHB._  Trying to say they don't is ignorance or a baldfaced lie.



Literally no one said that they don’t, so I’ve no idea what you arguing so forcefully against.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> If there is just one arcane spell list, that means wizards and bards and artificers and sorcerers all have the same options, which will either be a huge list that includes much it didn't before, or there will be options you can no longer get.  And trust me, the bard spell list was very different in play than the wizard one.




I'm still playing catch-up today (it was a very busy day) but I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the goals of the spell list. If you read the document it says 

_"There are now three main Spell lists in the
game: Arcane, Divine, and Primal. In future
Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how
Classes use these lists and how a Class or
Subclass might gain Spells from another list."_

So, what does this mean? Well, we don't entirely know, but it could be HIGHLY possible that the goal is that you will still have class spell lists, but you will ALSO have these generic lists. What this could mean is that the Wizard, Artificer, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard get access to the same pool of Arcane Spells, then the Bard gets a list of specifically bardic spells. Or maybe, I heard one person say, the change will be that Bard's get magical secrets earlier, and will be able to snipe healing spells from the Divine List. But, here's the real kicker that I think was the point. I'd bet that the Bard is going to have Magical Secrets that say "Pick X spells from the Divine or Primal Spell list" but they WON'T be able to grab from the ranger or paladin spell lists. This gives some additional ways to prevent unintended cross-over. 

Also note, that the Arcane list doesn't include Eldritch Blast. This is important because it means you CAN'T take a feat that gives you eldritch blast. You need to be a warlock to get it. So no more having a Sorcerer take Magic Initiate Warlock and getting Eldritch Blast, or any of the other cheese things that came from being able to grab specific spells meant for specific builds. This also means that an Eldritch Knight can just get "Arcane Spells" instead of being limited to "Partial Wizard list" 

Yes, this does mean that certain specific builds are now possible that weren't possible, or are not possible that were possible. But I don't think the goal is to have only three spell lists, not with the blatantly obvious ommisions from the 1st level spells and the missing Eldritch Blast.



Blue said:


> With ability score modifiers move from races to backgrounds, then trying to recreate the same character could have radically different ability scores.




Only if you choose to do it that way. They explicitly say you can modify the backgrounds, just like Tasha's allows you to modify the races. This isn't a real concern unless you refuse to allow that customization on either end. And the UA is explicit by listing two different ways to customize the backgrounds. Customizing them will be core.



Blue said:


> But trying to say that it's all 'just D&D' and there are no editions is dishonest.  Implying that I can completely use my current PHB of the current edition and someone else can use their 2024 PHB of the current edition, and there will be no rule conflicts is dishonest.  This is not the same edition when you make significant changes to character creation/advancement, the mechanics that are central to every player.




There will be rules conflicts, but I think the bigger question is where those conflicts appear. 

Sure, Tavern Brawler 2014 is different than Tavern Brawler 2024. That's not a "rules conflict" any more than taking the Beast of the Sky for the Beast Master ranger is a "rules conflict" with the PHB Beast Master. It's just a new version, new option. Most of the character creation is going to look identical between the two editions, with the 2024 having +1 Language (total three), +1 Tool, and the feat. Easy things to convert. 

The bigger changes come on the DM side. Changes to grapple, adding slowed, changes to unarmed strikes, These are deeply significant changes... but entirely on the DM side. These changes aren't going to make the character you build look significantly different. And that's no different than the DMG allowing for proficiency dice, or Theros giving us the Piety system.


----------



## Dire Bare

payn said:


> Wrong war, this one is about technology.



The warriors of each new phase of the neverending Edition Wars always think, _"This time, it's different . . . I do not war for the same reasons as those who have come before, as my cause is just and righteous."_

And yet, the wastes left of message boards and game tables always look the same . . .

Plus, have you read this thread? Yeah, some folks are all afeared of the new digital options coming our way, but more folks are arguing over changes to the actual rules of the game. 

_War, war never changes._


----------



## Bolongo

I mean, I kinda like the idea of feats for everyone at level 1 instead of the previous flavor abilities from the backgrounds. Because the later seldom saw any actual use, and the game sorely needs some way to distinguish characters of the same class and level from each other.

The actual examples of level 1 feats are badly unbalanced, though. And I'm still waiting to see what happens after level 1. Guess we'll have to wait another month and see if the next UA shows what they're thinking about classes.


----------



## Nickolaidas

I think I like what I hear and read. Basically, the way I see it, if I have to be 'up to date', rules wise, I have to put away my three core rulebooks and use the new ones.

However, every single adventure/campaign book of 5th Edition can be perfectly played and used in this next edition of D&D, which is just amazing for me.

Is the new Dragonlance book based on 5th Edition or the new one?


----------



## Bolongo

Nickolaidas said:


> Is the new Dragonlance book based on 5th Edition or the new one?



Well, since the 2024 edition is still in early playtesting.... what do you think?


----------



## Nickolaidas

Bolongo said:


> Well, since the 2024 edition is still in early playtesting.... what do you think?



I think that it's for the 6th Edition.


----------



## Bolongo

Nickolaidas said:


> I think that it's for the 6th Edition.



So you think a book released this year will be written for the rules that won't even be ready for another 2 years?
OK, we'll see how that pans out.


----------



## Nickolaidas

Bolongo said:


> So you think a book released this year will be written for the rules that won't even be ready for another 2 years?



Person, I was kidding. I didn't know the rulebooks' release date - for all I knew those books would be coming in December of 2022.

That said ... Hoard of the Dragon Queen released without the DM Guide, so it would be funny if this time they would release their first 6th Edition Campaign/Adventure book without any rulebook officially published.

Would make for a good way to prove full backwards compatibility, that's for sure.


----------



## Hussar

Nickolaidas said:


> I think I like what I hear and read. Basically, the way I see it, if I have to be 'up to date', rules wise, I have to put away my three core rulebooks and use the new ones.
> 
> However, every single adventure/campaign book of 5th Edition can be perfectly played and used in this next edition of D&D, which is just amazing for me.
> 
> Is the new Dragonlance book based on 5th Edition or the new one?




Honestly I think this is the healthiest way of looking at it.


----------



## payn

Dire Bare said:


> The warriors of each new phase of the neverending Edition Wars always think, _"This time, it's different . . . I do not war for the same reasons as those who have come before, as my cause is just and righteous."_
> 
> And yet, the wastes left of message boards and game tables always look the same . . .
> 
> Plus, have you read this thread? Yeah, some folks are all afeared of the new digital options coming our way, but more folks are arguing over changes to the actual rules of the game.
> 
> _War, war never changes._



Not my fault you wasted peace time not preparing for this.


----------



## Jimmy Dick

I play both digitally and live. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I am glad to have digital available to me for the times when I cannot play due to various conditions I mentioned. If a live GM is struggling to find players for a game they are running, they first need to consider whether or not various conditions are the reason why. After that, they need to consider why people do not want to play their game live. There's a reason. 

If a person refuses to play in digital space when the rest of the players need to because of the various combination of conditions, then don't blame the players. Blame the person who refuses to play online. They made their choice and have to abide by the consequences. Adapt to reality.


----------



## eayres33

Blue said:


> Which is why I didn't say that the math changed and you couldn't play them, I said that the character creation changed and you couldn't create the same characters anymore.  Please stay on topic and don't try to move the goalposts.
> 
> If there is just one arcane spell list, that means wizards and bards and artificers and sorcerers all have the same options, which will either be a huge list that includes much it didn't before, or there will be options you can no longer get.  And trust me, the bard spell list was very different in play than the wizard one.
> 
> With ability score modifiers move from races to backgrounds, then trying to recreate the same character could have radically different ability scores.
> 
> Some feats are changing, they gave examples of how Alert is different.
> 
> None of these changes are bad, but we have a precedent for this - a half edition.  3ed to 3.5ed.
> 
> But trying to say that it's all 'just D&D' and there are no editions is dishonest.  Implying that I can completely use my current PHB of the current edition and someone else can use their 2024 PHB of the current edition, and there will be no rule conflicts is dishonest.  This is not the same edition when you make significant changes to character creation/advancement, the mechanics that are central to every player.



I don't think they are moving the goal post I just think they have a different definition/expectation from the phrase "backwards  compatible,". Same thing came up with Level Up where some people thought the minor differences made it not compatible with standard DnD and some felt having to making small adjustments to the game was backwards compatible as most tables already make small adjustments to the rules already.


----------



## Micah Sweet

eayres33 said:


> I don't think they are moving the goal post I just think they have a different definition/expectation from the phrase "backwards  compatible,". Same thing came up with Level Up where some people thought the minor differences made it not compatible with standard DnD and some felt having to making small adjustments to the game was backwards compatible as most tables already make small adjustments to the rules already.



All I know is that many people on this forum expected these changes to be smaller than they were, just an integration of the recent books with the new core.  Now that it is clear the changes are at least somewhat more expansive than that, those same people are changing their tune and saying the changes aren't really a big deal to them rather than just admitting that they guessed wrong.


----------



## eayres33

Blue said:


> Ah, personal attacks.  A last refuge when neither rhetoric nor facts will support a point.
> 
> When you reply to my comment, and ignore the point I made to make another point, you are in fact moving the goalposts.  You were and are perfectly free to just go to the end of a page and hit reply to respond to the post as a whole and present your opinion on what compatibility means.  _However, when you specifically pick a post and reply to it, what you type should be a response to the comment you are replying to._  This is common forum etiquette.



You replied to what you see as a personal attack with a personal attack and again seem to represent what the poster and I see as a reasonable response as moving the goal post and then give a lecture on what you believe to be proper etiquette with out ever once addressing the actual facts presented by the poster.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> All I know is that many people on this forum expected these changes to be smaller than they were, just an integration of the recent books with the new core.  Now that it is clear the changes are at least somewhat more expansive than that, those same people are changing their tune and saying the changes aren't really a big deal to them rather than just admitting that they guessed wrong.



And you were complaining about even those small changes being made and wanted the game to change more substantially like Level Up. And the changes are more substantial than "just the Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse changes", a lot of ways that improve lackluster features from the previous iteration of 5e. 

Some people thought it would just be Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse changes. I would have been fine with that, but I wanted more. This playtest is proposing bigger changes, which makes me ecstatic. 

What do you hate so much about this playtest?


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And you were complaining about even those small changes being made and wanted the game to change more substantially like Level Up. And the changes are more substantial than "just the Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse changes", a lot of ways that improve lackluster features from the previous iteration of 5e.
> 
> Some people thought it would just be Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse changes. I would have been fine with that, but I wanted more. This playtest is proposing bigger changes, which makes me ecstatic.
> 
> What do you hate so much about this playtest?



The fact that they're not treating it as a new edition, and making changes to the game accordingly to suit the modern gamer.   That's really it.  Most of the stuff they're doing reads as fine, but not far enough to suit me.  Its the wrong amount of change.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Blue said:


> Please, take my wood elf hermit monk and rebuild him mechanically the same using the UA.  Ability score modifiers in the same place*.  Mask of the Wild wood elf subrace feature to hide.  Same Discovery hermit feature.   Longbow proficiency for a good ranged option.
> 
> *I understand that I can give up my background, create a custom background that covers the exact same narrative space as an existing background, and shift around the ability score modifiers.  *That still is a change.*   And also doesn't grant me the feature, some of which like our Urchin in a Ravnica game I played where quick travel through a city gets used every session.  And it does grant me a feat, which is *also a change.*
> 
> Literally every single section presented in the UA can and usually does differ from the existing character.
> 
> I'm not saying any of it is bad.  I'm also not saying a 2014 PHB character can't adventure alongside a 2024 character.  What I said is that you can't recreate the same character and have the mechanics match.  _This isn't debatable, the mechanics in the document differ from the PHB._  Trying to say they don't is ignorance or a baldfaced lie.




I agree that the Wodd elf losing Mask of the Wild bothers me. I get they are moving that concept into the Pass Without a Trace, but I wish the Wood Elf kept the mask. The losing of longbow proficiency is a thing I'm less upset about. There were parts that made it make sense, but also parts that I didn't like about it. Mostly, it just didn't matter. Monk is one of the few places where it is actually an option. Then again, maybe your feat is something like weapon master. Not currently an option, but you ARE trying to convert. 

But the loss of the Hermit secret? I think that's actually a BONUS. 

See, the Hermit's secret was always an incredibly difficult thing to force into the game. I could make it utterly worthless (You know the secret of the Queen of Air and Darkness's true name, now, let's continue with this story about a war against an Lich's empire that never effect fey) or I could make it key (You know the location of the Lich's Phylactery) which fundamentally changes the campaign. Compare that to Urchin which allows you to move double speed in cities.... which often involve no attention paid to speed at all, and is weird when growing up in Baldur's Gate means that you know the secret ways of the City of Brass. 

Or Sage giving you "you know where to look for information" something that never comes up. Because, surprise surprise, if there is plot critical information the PCs need to look up... they also know where to go. Or Sailor in a game that never goes to the sea. 

A LOT of those background features were noise and never applied. 


So, I agree. The rules are not identical. But that doesn't mean that it isn't for good reasons.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

caudor said:


> I'm trying to decide whether to slow down on my Fantasy Grounds purchases since WotC is bringing in a new VTT.  It seems like it might still be a long way off though.  Also, DMsguild has hooked up with Roll20, which adds another dimension to the dilemma.  I'll still be able to play my current content on FG, but the future of VTTs is cloudy at this point.



I would not worry about it yet. It is not known if digital D&D will support any game other than D&D or any ruleset not on D&DBeyond. In which case would would these VTTs stop existing. Not all their installed player base are D&D players nor will they all migrate to Digital D&D. There is no incentive for WoTC to stop their licence agreements with these companies. D&D got a considerable reputational hit before my mucking about with licencing that lead to the creation of Pathfinder. There is no evidence that they are going to repeat that.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Retreater said:


> No. He gave the example of the existing recharge mechanic for a dragon's breath weapon and said nothing about it being applied to any other creatures. And he said "that's enough" and said more damage was "too scary."



That is not what he said, or rather he did say that but said a lot more than that also. Starting about 52 minute mark they talk about crits. Initially about weapons and spells. 
talk on crits for monsters begins at 54:58 Initially about the swingness of low level monster crits. Some remarks about the use of static damage and then he get in to that 
"monsters already have their own built in crit like mechanic and that is the recharge mechanic. "We (designers) use recharge abilities to deliver those scary massive strikes. Think of the dragon's breath weapon, when that happens everyone is put on notice, and that is the scary moment. The DM decides when to use it. So, the dm can make an informed decision when to crank up the difficulty in a battle. The Dm has no control over a critical hit. Now, uncertainty is also fun, because we like DMs being surprised but that is where the recharge roll comes in. Because when the DM decides, essentially to press the 'things are going to get real button' they are not sure when they get the button back. So there is already uncertainty purposefully built into the recharge mechanic. What we are exploring is this notion of really monsters don't need crits.... "

By God! Jeremy is long winded. From that I would expect all monsters to get a recharge mechanic going forward. 

Given the reduction on the swingness of the player crits and the elimination of monster crits they could reduce monster hit points. Tune the recharge mechanics and pretty much improve the CR system by a lot in the one pass.

The loss of omph on the players side would be compensated somewhat by the inspiration mechanic and the mosnters would be scary because does the recharge kick in before the party wins.


----------



## Blue

eayres33 said:


> So, I agree. The rules are not identical. But that doesn't mean that it isn't for good reasons.



I agree, never said the changes are bad - I went out of my way t say I wasn't jusding that.  I like many of the changes.

My point has been that characters are central to what the players do, and we have a precedent for that changing being a half edition, 3.0 to 3.5.  Saying it's one edition when the original core books of that edition and the new books "of that edition" would not be able to reproduce the same character mechanically.

My point is that this is a half edition change (at least), and is not the same edition as came out in 2014.


----------



## MReav

Personally, I think if they want to have "human with animal head" idea using deities as inspiration, the Ardling should be a deity-descended entity rather than a celestial one. I do like the idea of having different planar ancestries affecting the racial traits.
So here are the ideas I'd like to see:
Supernal races such as the Ardling, Aasimar, and Tieflings represent a descendant of a union between a mortal and an otherworldly entity. While human unions do tend to be most commonly represented, it is possible to have elf, dwarf, orc, etc versions as well.  Use the mortal race's stats to determine size and weight, and the supernal ancestry adds a multiplier to the maximum age.
Ardling: You have a god, avatar or chosen as your ancestor. Many deities also have a sacred animal or animals, and it is common for Ardlings to have heads of such creatures.
How the Ardling's abilities will work will probably need some hashing out, but they'd probably be similar to the playtest Tiefling in getting spells at third and fifth level, which could be chosen from a domain spell list, as well as get some sort of resistance.
Aasimar: Transfer the Ardling's current themes and abilities tying them to the different upper planes to the Aasimar and also add "Angelic" to the mix with an appropriate set of spells and cantrip to them. If you want to have more exotic looks for Aasimar, consider extra eyes, unusual skins colours (like what you'd find in Planetars, Astral Devas or Trumpet Archons), and even animal features (though not full animal head replacements).
Tiefling: Keep as is, but add Cambion to the list of backgrounds, since Succubi are not really flavoured to be from any one particular planar realm.
Have a sidebar for Tiefling and Aasimar establishing that the subraces mentioned in the main game are the most common branches, but there could be other subtypes representing an association with a specific type of fiend or celestial (with the Cambion being so common that it already gets represented) or archbeing.


----------



## Chaosmancer

MReav said:


> Personally, I think if they want to have "human with animal head" idea using deities as inspiration, the Ardling should be a deity-descended entity rather than a celestial one. I do like the idea of having different planar ancestries affecting the racial traits.
> So here are the ideas I'd like to see:
> Supernal races such as the Ardling, Aasimar, and Tieflings represent a descendant of a union between a mortal and an otherworldly entity. While human unions do tend to be most commonly represented, it is possible to have elf, dwarf, orc, etc versions as well.  Use the mortal race's stats to determine size and weight, and the supernal ancestry adds a multiplier to the maximum age.
> Ardling: You have a god, avatar or chosen as your ancestor. Many deities also have a sacred animal or animals, and it is common for Ardlings to have heads of such creatures.
> How the Ardling's abilities will work will probably need some hashing out, but they'd probably be similar to the playtest Tiefling in getting spells at third and fifth level, which could be chosen from a domain spell list, as well as get some sort of resistance.
> 
> Aasimar: Transfer the Ardling's current themes and abilities tying them to the different upper planes to the Aasimar and also add "Angelic" to the mix with an appropriate set of spells and cantrip to them. If you want to have more exotic looks for Aasimar, consider extra eyes, unusual skins colours (like what you'd find in Planetars, Astral Devas or Trumpet Archons), and even animal features (though not full animal head replacements).
> 
> Tiefling: Keep as is, but add Cambion to the list of backgrounds, since Succubi are not really flavoured to be from any one particular planar realm.
> Have a sidebar for Tiefling and Aasimar establishing that the subraces mentioned in the main game are the most common branches, but there could be other subtypes representing an association with a specific type of fiend or celestial (with the Cambion being so common that it already gets represented) or archbeing.




Personally? I'd just swap in Aasimar, note that the half-races allows them to have animal features due to the nature of celestials in DnD. 

Then Ardlings can be neutrally aligned and associated with primal spirits. That fits far better into their appearance, it doesn't weirdly shoe-horn the Aasimar since it covers the third leg of the design, and it allows for some more interesting designs. 

Another poster recomended them being a new version of the  hengeyokai which is an EXCELLENT idea.


----------



## Blue

Okay, for those who have commented about if this is the same edition or different edition with my insistance that big changes to the character creation rules are a harbinger of at least a hald edition, like we did with 3.0 to 3.5.  Let me try another approach.

If it's the same edition, then it's actually the same edition and we can use all of the books as long as they haven't been surplanted.  I can pick the latest Minotaur from MotM which grants a +2 to one ability and +1 to another, as well as latest Gladiator background which grants +2 Strength and +1 Charisma.  So I could end up with +4 STR, +1 CON, +1 CHR if I wanted.  And this is all through choosing legal options in the current/only edition.

If it's different editions, then there is a segregation, with material from 2014 thru 2023 books in one edition, and material in 2024+ books in another edition.  (Or half edition, which seems more likely.)  If it's just one edition then we need to treat it as one edition including mixing and matching pre- and post-2024 sources.


----------



## gametaku

Blue said:


> Okay, for those who have commented about if this is the same edition or different edition with my insistance that big changes to the character creation rules are a harbinger of at least a hald edition, like we did with 3.0 to 3.5.  Let me try another approach.
> 
> If it's the same edition, then it's actually the same edition and we can use all of the books as long as they haven't been surplanted.  I can pick the latest Minotaur from MotM which grants a +2 to one ability and +1 to another, as well as latest Gladiator background which grants +2 Strength and +1 Charisma.  So I could end up with +4 STR, +1 CON, +1 CHR if I wanted.  And this is all through choosing legal options in the current/only edition.
> 
> If it's different editions, then there is a segregation, with material from 2014 thru 2023 books in one edition, and material in 2024+ books in another edition.  (Or half edition, which seems more likely.)  If it's just one edition then we need to treat it as one edition including mixing and matching pre- and post-2024 sources.




Except for the fact that you don't get both the Minotaur and Gladiator ASI's.  You pick one or the other as noted in page 11 in the box labeled ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM ELSEWHERE
--
ABILITY SCORE INCREASES FROM ELSEWHERE Since 2014, characters have received ability score increases from several sources, either from a Race that has the Ability Score Increase trait or from the ability score rules in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, Monsters of the Multiverse, and other books. If you make a character using one of those older sources and get ability score increases from it, the character doesn’t also get ability score increases from Background, unless you forgo the older ability score increases to gain the increases from the Background rules here
--


----------



## caudor

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would not worry about it yet. It is not known if digital D&D will support any game other than D&D or any ruleset not on D&DBeyond. In which case would would these VTTs stop existing. Not all their installed player base are D&D players nor will they all migrate to Digital D&D. There is no incentive for WoTC to stop their licence agreements with these companies. D&D got a considerable reputational hit before my mucking about with licencing that lead to the creation of Pathfinder. There is no evidence that they are going to repeat that.



Thanks for pointing that out; I'm feeling more at ease about it now.  I don't see any incentive for Wotc to drop the agreements either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dire Bare said:


> The warriors of each new phase of the neverending Edition Wars always think, _"This time, it's different . . . I do not war for the same reasons as those who have come before, as my cause is just and righteous."_
> 
> And yet, the wastes left of message boards and game tables always look the same . . .
> 
> Plus, have you read this thread? Yeah, some folks are all afeared of the new digital options coming our way, but more folks are arguing over changes to the actual rules of the game.
> 
> _War, war never changes._



Nah man, this thread isn’t anywhere close to the edition wars. 

I remember. People were _mean._


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> All I know is that many people on this forum expected these changes to be smaller than they were, just an integration of the recent books with the new core.  Now that it is clear the changes are at least somewhat more expansive than that, those same people are changing their tune and saying the changes aren't really a big deal to them rather than just admitting that they guessed wrong.



I don’t think most folks thought it’d just be collating of existing expansion rules. A few people, but very small minority.

Hat many of us, rightly, guessed was that they’d just be fixing some pain points and updating things based on play feedback over the last 8 years, not a new edition in the sense that D&D has been using the term for 20 years.


----------



## teitan

MadPuppy said:


> Not sure I agree with the "animal races" being popular....Was reading the spelljamer book recently....Space hamsters and Flying monkeys? What next Ozspace?!



That’s all straight TSR monsters though.


----------



## teitan

TerraDave said:


> Yes, changing all races, massively beefing up backgrounds, making feats mandatory, and totally reorganizing spells count as change, maybe even _core_ change. At least a .5 change. Even a 1e to 2e change. And they are not done yet. They are just getting started.
> 
> I am not steaming, because I knew they were going to do something. They weren't going to have all this hype just to add some errata or fix witchbolt.



1e to 2e wasn’t that big of a change.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MadPuppy said:


> Not sure I agree with the "animal races" being popular....Was reading the spelljamer book recently....Space hamsters and Flying monkeys? What next Ozspace?!



I'm flashing back to when _Supernatural_ just rolled with the idea that Oz was a real dimension in their setting and obviously the Oz books were actual autobiographical accounts, and like, no-one in the show really even questioned it or thought it was that weird, even Dean was basically like "No duh obviously".

Also Ozspace would fit weirdly well into Spelljammer I must admit.


----------



## Nikosandros

MadPuppy said:


> Not sure I agree with the "animal races" being popular....Was reading the spelljamer book recently....Space hamsters and Flying monkeys? What next Ozspace?!



So that we can finally say: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in the Sword Coast anymore"


----------



## Staffan

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm flashing back to when _Supernatural_ just rolled with the idea that Oz was a real dimension in their setting and obviously the Oz books were actual autobiographical accounts, and like, no-one in the show really even questioned it or thought it was that weird, even Dean was basically like "No duh obviously".
> 
> Also Ozspace would fit weirdly well into Spelljammer I must admit.



I mean, at that point they had already established that there was a series of novels chronicling the Winchesters' adventures (written by God themself, under the pseudonym Carver Edlund), and that those books had a fan base big enough for the occasional convention and for some people to write fanfic including slashfic of it.

So Oz being real is no big, considering.


----------

