Put it any predictions you have about One D&D, whether it is based off the unearthed Arcana's, or based off info from other players, or simply or own intuition :D! Keep in mind, predictions could vary from guessing something about the rules system to guessing something about how it will impact the website! Any prediction related to One D&D in any way is fine!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fighter: We need to get out of here! The Goblins are overwhelming us!
Wizard: Time to use that sketchy item the DM never stops grinning about *rolls a nat one*
Barbarian(in rage as usual): Aw Hellllllll Naw . . .
I predict that I will use the rules and such that work out well for my game, and ignore the rest.
I also predict that I will probably not use any of the classes as written in either 5e or this version, because I am sing a custom setting that none of the classes really work well for, and that none of the races will be used, either, for the same reason.
I also predict that there will be a bunch of folks who will complain about "how bad" the rules are, who will be upset because they would have done it differently -- except unlike me, they won't take the time to enjoy stuff for what it is while creating their own stuff for their own games because they will be saying they use a published world that they have added a bunch of stuff to.
Next, I predict that there will be a lot of people who will start playing the game that will outnumber the folks who complain by likely a three to one or better ratio, and that they will roll their eyes at folks like me who are more OSR and hold up hands to be talked to by those who complain about edition changes because this will be *their* version of the game, and they love the VTT and ease of entry into the gaming world and that it will get even worse once it starts to resemble a computer game with unreal engine based encounters and game play.
Lastly, I predict that over the next two years I will end up with probably 50 players in the groups I am part of who will be teasing the hell out of me for being a crochety old lady who runs a game that relies more on the rules for playing the game than on the rules for character creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
I predict the game will be fine once the 2024 books come out. Most will either transition to the update rules or use a combination of both. A few will ditch the new version to stick with the old. But I think most will move over in the following two years from release, as more books come out.
To be honest, it is starting to feel like they are making less “bold” changes to maintain backwards compatibility and to keep the community happy. This last UA has some good things in it. Revised classes have some improvements, some big improvements, compared to the initial release in previous UA’s. So I don’t feel like the updated game will feel much different than the current version.
I'm not thrilled for it, but I think updates are necessary.
1. I'm not a fan of the push to the site for EVERYTHING, and the rumors of digital content being pushed further. Physical books have resale value. Physical games mean I don't need a subscription. I feel corralled into a certain style of game play with this move/push.
To this I also feel like this release has a very video game feel and it is being revised to streamline the content to fit existing mechanics that translated well to online mechanics. I also feel the DM's role is being greatly diminished which has some benefits, but also is to aid in this push towards having as much content online and strictly online as possible.
2. We need a new edition, not a revised edition. Some things in the core of the mechanics need to be addressed and class identities have become incredibly muddled.
3. I dislike that the companies that have owned D&D have ditched old editions for new editions, which seems foolish. Every time they ditch, some other company is more than happy to create a clone and continue on to great success... for the other company. To this end, I'm not happy because basically regardless of whether they walk back on a new edition (which again, they need), or continue with One DnD as part of a "revised 5e", the idea is still to replace the edition, which, they really don't have to do. I mean print whatever editions you have rights to FFS. Color code them so we know what we're playing. I just don't get the editioning. Especially when so much of it outside of PHB and DMG are just recycled content...
I need to wait and see the 2nd version of the rest of the classes at a bare minimum before making any judgement. The ball was seriously dropped on the Monk and Warlock, IMO. I need to see how that gets fixed.
The majority of nerfs to the monk are so subtle that they can easily escape notice, but are so thorough I can only presume actual malice is behind them.
To this I also feel like this release has a very video game feel and it is being revised to streamline the content to fit existing mechanics that translated well to online mechanics.
I would not be terribly surprised if this version ends up being geared towards the Table Top Simulator or some VR variant if/when the technology improves sufficiently. The conditions and such seem tailored towards being coded in the future.
This edition will address a good number of balance problems and tweak features of 5e, although the streamlining of mechanics and options will remove some interesting complexity for long time players. This could make it more attractive to new players, but could also just lead to different "camps" of playing groups; some who use the old 5e exclusively (mostly at a physical tabletop), those who adopt the rules and use some hybrid/homebrew with new content, and those who go all-in.
The new VTT will turn the game on its head once revealed in a fully functional state. I predict a lot of experienced curmudgeons will suddenly change their tack when they see the ability to essentially play inside a 3-D film set online. The first reveal looked stunning.
I'll still enjoy the blend of tabletop with digital character sheets and mechanics, but with physical dice and minis, and a lot of the simplicity of mechanics could just lead to more concentration on the story and character development, which suits me just fine. In the end this is about having fun with others while conjuring a fantasy narrative communally, and that will not change.
The new VTT will turn the game on its head once revealed in a fully functional state. I predict a lot of experienced curmudgeons will suddenly change their tack when they see the ability to essentially play inside a 3-D film set online. The first reveal looked stunning.
I'll still enjoy the blend of tabletop with digital character sheets and mechanics, but with physical dice and minis, and a lot of the simplicity of mechanics could just lead to more concentration on the story and character development, which suits me just fine. In the end this is about having fun with others while conjuring a fantasy narrative communally, and that will not change.
I highly doubt it'll be a 3d experience like we've never seen.
3d has been a failed tech since it was used as a movie gimmick back in the.. 50's? 60's?
A digital tabletop is about DRM and anyone trying to say otherwise is incredibly naive and foolish or they're paid by corporate. Subscription services are about giving someone something to literally own nothing, and digital distribution is next to zero cost.
And this isn't a Hasbro/wizards/or dndb thing. It's literally Every. Single. Web. Based. Company. They're all doing it. They're all trying to wrong out every penny they can, and have been trying to do this for decades now. Hell, the DRM nightmare dates back to the early 00's with Steam doing whatever the hell they wanted pulling people's games because they felt like it. Apple deciding what to install on your computer without asking you when they forced you to download U2. Amazon deciding to delete copies of 1984 from kindles. Nagware on QuickBooks and ads in BUSINESS software which you purchase at an exorbitant price.
In fact with QuickBooks you need a monthly subscription for software you purchased and installed on your computer to use files on your computer on a program that hasn't changed much in decades and until recently never needed an internet connection to function.
@obvert - Hasbro is not doing anything new. Check out Talespire. It's a VTT that allows for video creation and similar during games. True 'Matrix' level games are far, far in the future.
Regarding One D&D. The game has become very vanilla in order to make everyone happy which, in turn, is causing the loss of the ability to try new things and innovate. It's been said that everyone may like vanilla ice cream but it is no one's favorite. Same applies with recent D&D products and everything I have seen from One D&D.
The last few books have been uninteresting and/or contained poorly developed rulesets. So much so that most folks I know have begun looking at other 3rd party material. If Hasbro/WotC pushes 3rd parties out of their new digital desktop I feel safe in saying it will be DOA. Simple history tells us this. 4th edition tried to do something similar and failed spectacularly.
With the debacle earlier this year causing 3rd parties to go into overdrive developing alternate rpg's I have my doubts One D&D will gain much if anything. Why would someone invest more into One D&D when an consumer can invest in roll20, Foundry VTT, or Fantasy Grounds and play not only D&D but also have access to hundreds of other games to include 3rd party 5E creators who are more innovative, exciting, and a better value of page per dollar.
Personally, I don't understand why Hasbro/WotC didn't just buy an existing VTT platform. Or closely pair with one. Even for a game like D&D margins are tight and the creation and continued support of a VTT will be a huge money sink. It's millions in overhead with the amount of pay to play features required to make it work sure to drive folks away. Especially if it's a walled off playground for Hasbro only.
Personally, I have been getting less and less excited with One D&D. Too many unncessary nerfs and martials not getting buffs to keep up with fullcasters.
it looks better than the base version we play right now in general terms, so yes. it will be fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There are many positive and interesting innovations. But everything revolves around the fighter and the wizard, the rest of the classes are filler.
Especially the monk seems to be the worst off, and since it is a class that is close to my heart, my judgment is definitely negative.
Perhaps, due to the many design criticisms of the monk in dnd 5e, and the many demands of a redesign led to high expectations that were difficult to execute. So in order to lower the public's expectations, they presented a relatively inferior monk, so that when they resubmit it, the monk will have a better reception from the public.
Or maybe they purposely want the monk to be unplayable so that they have an excuse to delete it completely or make it a subclass. Every class now a possibilities to use unarmed attacks in their attack features, I would not be surprised to see a fighter with monk subclass, a barbarian + monk subclass, and why not even a monk Druid. The extreme would be for it to simply become a feat, " Martial Arts Adept..."
Unlikely, but perhaps WotC is incapable of creating a decent monk class, for political reasons or discrimination or imaginative inabilities.
I think it's more a question of how to execute a class that checks the class fantasies /and/ has unique and interesting mechanics. Much like the problems with the psion, the monk at it's core, is just another martial, melee character and will suffer accordingly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
As an experienced curmudgeon, I can say that I absolutely will not be big on the VTT unless they set it up so that you can customize everything, especially the setting and the look of it.
because I do not use the published worlds, very rarely use published adventures, and create all my stuff from scratch. Unless the VTT allows and enables that, it won’t even be a blip on my radar.
note that I don’t expect them to make it that way. The cost is immense, and they don’t have the manpower needed to do so, nor the budget. So don’t think I am saying I want them to do so — it will be designed to allow the play of adventures in worlds and settings they published, and odds are it will be a great tool.
but it won’t turn heads of old hands because those who have been playing for decades were essentially taught to create their own worlds, and so they did.
hell, I can’t even use the DDB character generation system here, because it doesn’t work for something that isn’t a published world — and even more so for one that draws on inspirations other than the original ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
You have to have an insane amount of homebrew in character creation for the character generation here to not work in your home campaign. Character creation is nearly 100% world agnostic outside a couple of backgrounds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You have to have an insane amount of homebrew in character creation for the character generation here to not work in your home campaign. Character creation is nearly 100% world agnostic outside a couple of backgrounds.
Not really.
Optional Rules: Sanity, Spell Points. Neither work with DDB. Those are in the books -- if you use them, you cannot use the DDB system and the new VTT isn't going to fly.
All of the classes require a basis in a setting that is not agnostic -- Druids, as they are set up, requires some form of setting basis that allows for them. Cleris generally require some kind of set up where there are "gods of" something or other, Paladins require a similar structure.
Outside of Wizard, Fighter, Rogue (before subclasses), pretty much every class has something that is based in the setting (or they wouldn't exist, simply enough) -- it is more than just throwing some names out and saying "ok, this is a world. A setting takes each element and finds a way to give them a basi in the setting -- the "why do druids exist" kind of thing. Change some of the default expectations of what is supposed to be there that is built into the DDB, and you can't use the classes or sub classes.
Now let's say that you decide you want to take out all the Tolkien ideas, all the Moorcock ideas, all the Zelazny ideas, all the Norton ideas. Get something original and creative and fresh.
Now, I will grant you the "insane" part -- I have never been accused of being particularly sane except by the Courts that one time (giggle), but I have been doing that level of Homebrew since 1982 at least, lol. The way that Greyhawk and FR were combined was pretty much a given, but I still recall how incredibly involved FR was in its creation -- and I am not a fan of it (for me, it is a fine place).
But those first two items -- the optional rules, they aren't useful in DDB and won't be in the Vtt, most likely. And those two things don't even really require any homebrew -- they simply aren't something that is considered useful to enough people to be put into the VTT.
Plug of the moment: in my sig is a link to The Wyrlde Book. Just a setting -- not rules. THe rules are a lot more complicated, and there is no way to convert the new races and classes that are there into the DDB format -- simply because the DDB format has certain presuppositions built in that are essential for as many people as possible to be able to play.
All of that said, the goal of the VTT in a lot of ways is to solve the problem of "too few DMs" -- which is really "too few DMs who run games that are light on Homebrew ". And for that, it will be incredible -- just not very useful to old folks like me, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
So far, all we've seen is the "easier" stuff to amend: classes, subclasses, origins, & species. We haven't seen any of the next easiest stuff to change or fix: spells. Well, we've seen one or two, here & there. And most of the changes have evoked (yes, I went there) controversy. I say "easy" because player options are what most people look at first and foremost anyway. Also, because player options are a good baseline from which to start, and then you can change other facets of the game to balance and accommodate to that baseline.
But we haven't seen any of the other changes yet:
Monsters and monster abilities. They've said that they won't be changing monster CRs, in the interest of backwards compatibility. So they need to make sure that any CR 1/2 Monsters don't have flesh to stone insta-kills, or something. How difficult monsters actually are will help determine how useful/powerful player combat abilities are.
The DMG. If they do this right, it could help solve the lack of DMs. But it also greatly affects player options, too. If the DMG has more rules about how to integrate setting and exploration, then many non-combat player abilities suddenly become more relevant. More emphasis on food, exploration, foraging, tracking means that everyone will want a Ranger in the party. More emphasis on traps and locks means everyone wants a Rogue. If social interactions are emphasized, then "face" classes and abilities will be coveted. Skill challenges will make Bards, Rogues, Arificers, etc have more useful features. If combat is somehow changed to eliminate the "whack-a-mole" combat style, then healing, damage mitigation, and battlefield control become more relevant.
Basically, how a game is run makes all the difference in how relevant and effective player abilities & features are. I'm not sure how they can codify those things. That's the sort of thing that should be figured out between the players & DM in a session zero- what kind of gameplay do the players enjoy? However, the DMG could help a DM in figuring these things out and have rules- or at least guidelines or ideas- in how to run them. Suggestions on how to make every class' features seem useful and worth having for their players should be included. As a player, nothing sucks worse than taking a class & thinking this feature or that will be awesome, only to have it never really come up (I'm looking at you, Rangers, with your tracking & foraging).
So yeah. Spells. Monsters. Dungeon Masters. There's a lot that still needs to be covered, before we can have a fuller understanding of even the player options they've presented so far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Put it any predictions you have about One D&D, whether it is based off the unearthed Arcana's, or based off info from other players, or simply or own intuition :D! Keep in mind, predictions could vary from guessing something about the rules system to guessing something about how it will impact the website! Any prediction related to One D&D in any way is fine!
Fighter: We need to get out of here! The Goblins are overwhelming us!
Wizard: Time to use that sketchy item the DM never stops grinning about *rolls a nat one*
Barbarian(in rage as usual): Aw Hellllllll Naw . . .
I predict that I will use the rules and such that work out well for my game, and ignore the rest.
I also predict that I will probably not use any of the classes as written in either 5e or this version, because I am sing a custom setting that none of the classes really work well for, and that none of the races will be used, either, for the same reason.
I also predict that there will be a bunch of folks who will complain about "how bad" the rules are, who will be upset because they would have done it differently -- except unlike me, they won't take the time to enjoy stuff for what it is while creating their own stuff for their own games because they will be saying they use a published world that they have added a bunch of stuff to.
Next, I predict that there will be a lot of people who will start playing the game that will outnumber the folks who complain by likely a three to one or better ratio, and that they will roll their eyes at folks like me who are more OSR and hold up hands to be talked to by those who complain about edition changes because this will be *their* version of the game, and they love the VTT and ease of entry into the gaming world and that it will get even worse once it starts to resemble a computer game with unreal engine based encounters and game play.
Lastly, I predict that over the next two years I will end up with probably 50 players in the groups I am part of who will be teasing the hell out of me for being a crochety old lady who runs a game that relies more on the rules for playing the game than on the rules for character creation.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I predict the game will be fine once the 2024 books come out. Most will either transition to the update rules or use a combination of both. A few will ditch the new version to stick with the old. But I think most will move over in the following two years from release, as more books come out.
To be honest, it is starting to feel like they are making less “bold” changes to maintain backwards compatibility and to keep the community happy. This last UA has some good things in it. Revised classes have some improvements, some big improvements, compared to the initial release in previous UA’s. So I don’t feel like the updated game will feel much different than the current version.
I believe people will have fun yet still complain. Welcome to 2023!
I'm not thrilled for it, but I think updates are necessary.
1. I'm not a fan of the push to the site for EVERYTHING, and the rumors of digital content being pushed further. Physical books have resale value. Physical games mean I don't need a subscription. I feel corralled into a certain style of game play with this move/push.
To this I also feel like this release has a very video game feel and it is being revised to streamline the content to fit existing mechanics that translated well to online mechanics. I also feel the DM's role is being greatly diminished which has some benefits, but also is to aid in this push towards having as much content online and strictly online as possible.
2. We need a new edition, not a revised edition. Some things in the core of the mechanics need to be addressed and class identities have become incredibly muddled.
3. I dislike that the companies that have owned D&D have ditched old editions for new editions, which seems foolish. Every time they ditch, some other company is more than happy to create a clone and continue on to great success... for the other company. To this end, I'm not happy because basically regardless of whether they walk back on a new edition (which again, they need), or continue with One DnD as part of a "revised 5e", the idea is still to replace the edition, which, they really don't have to do. I mean print whatever editions you have rights to FFS. Color code them so we know what we're playing. I just don't get the editioning. Especially when so much of it outside of PHB and DMG are just recycled content...
I need to wait and see the 2nd version of the rest of the classes at a bare minimum before making any judgement. The ball was seriously dropped on the Monk and Warlock, IMO. I need to see how that gets fixed.
The majority of nerfs to the monk are so subtle that they can easily escape notice, but are so thorough I can only presume actual malice is behind them.
I would not be terribly surprised if this version ends up being geared towards the Table Top Simulator or some VR variant if/when the technology improves sufficiently. The conditions and such seem tailored towards being coded in the future.
This edition will address a good number of balance problems and tweak features of 5e, although the streamlining of mechanics and options will remove some interesting complexity for long time players. This could make it more attractive to new players, but could also just lead to different "camps" of playing groups; some who use the old 5e exclusively (mostly at a physical tabletop), those who adopt the rules and use some hybrid/homebrew with new content, and those who go all-in.
The new VTT will turn the game on its head once revealed in a fully functional state. I predict a lot of experienced curmudgeons will suddenly change their tack when they see the ability to essentially play inside a 3-D film set online. The first reveal looked stunning.
I'll still enjoy the blend of tabletop with digital character sheets and mechanics, but with physical dice and minis, and a lot of the simplicity of mechanics could just lead to more concentration on the story and character development, which suits me just fine. In the end this is about having fun with others while conjuring a fantasy narrative communally, and that will not change.
I highly doubt it'll be a 3d experience like we've never seen.
3d has been a failed tech since it was used as a movie gimmick back in the.. 50's? 60's?
A digital tabletop is about DRM and anyone trying to say otherwise is incredibly naive and foolish or they're paid by corporate. Subscription services are about giving someone something to literally own nothing, and digital distribution is next to zero cost.
And this isn't a Hasbro/wizards/or dndb thing. It's literally Every. Single. Web. Based. Company. They're all doing it. They're all trying to wrong out every penny they can, and have been trying to do this for decades now. Hell, the DRM nightmare dates back to the early 00's with Steam doing whatever the hell they wanted pulling people's games because they felt like it. Apple deciding what to install on your computer without asking you when they forced you to download U2. Amazon deciding to delete copies of 1984 from kindles. Nagware on QuickBooks and ads in BUSINESS software which you purchase at an exorbitant price.
In fact with QuickBooks you need a monthly subscription for software you purchased and installed on your computer to use files on your computer on a program that hasn't changed much in decades and until recently never needed an internet connection to function.
It's DRM for money dude.
@obvert - Hasbro is not doing anything new. Check out Talespire. It's a VTT that allows for video creation and similar during games. True 'Matrix' level games are far, far in the future.
Regarding One D&D. The game has become very vanilla in order to make everyone happy which, in turn, is causing the loss of the ability to try new things and innovate. It's been said that everyone may like vanilla ice cream but it is no one's favorite. Same applies with recent D&D products and everything I have seen from One D&D.
The last few books have been uninteresting and/or contained poorly developed rulesets. So much so that most folks I know have begun looking at other 3rd party material. If Hasbro/WotC pushes 3rd parties out of their new digital desktop I feel safe in saying it will be DOA. Simple history tells us this. 4th edition tried to do something similar and failed spectacularly.
With the debacle earlier this year causing 3rd parties to go into overdrive developing alternate rpg's I have my doubts One D&D will gain much if anything. Why would someone invest more into One D&D when an consumer can invest in roll20, Foundry VTT, or Fantasy Grounds and play not only D&D but also have access to hundreds of other games to include 3rd party 5E creators who are more innovative, exciting, and a better value of page per dollar.
Personally, I don't understand why Hasbro/WotC didn't just buy an existing VTT platform. Or closely pair with one. Even for a game like D&D margins are tight and the creation and continued support of a VTT will be a huge money sink. It's millions in overhead with the amount of pay to play features required to make it work sure to drive folks away. Especially if it's a walled off playground for Hasbro only.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
i want 5e with the official VTT for 3d games
Is it just me or are others getting less and less excited the longer it takes to be released?
Personally, I have been getting less and less excited with One D&D. Too many unncessary nerfs and martials not getting buffs to keep up with fullcasters.
it looks better than the base version we play right now in general terms, so yes. it will be fine.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There are many positive and interesting innovations. But everything revolves around the fighter and the wizard, the rest of the classes are filler.
Especially the monk seems to be the worst off, and since it is a class that is close to my heart, my judgment is definitely negative.
Perhaps, due to the many design criticisms of the monk in dnd 5e, and the many demands of a redesign led to high expectations that were difficult to execute. So in order to lower the public's expectations, they presented a relatively inferior monk, so that when they resubmit it, the monk will have a better reception from the public.
Or maybe they purposely want the monk to be unplayable so that they have an excuse to delete it completely or make it a subclass. Every class now a possibilities to use unarmed attacks in their attack features, I would not be surprised to see a fighter with monk subclass, a barbarian + monk subclass, and why not even a monk Druid. The extreme would be for it to simply become a feat, " Martial Arts Adept..."
Unlikely, but perhaps WotC is incapable of creating a decent monk class, for political reasons or discrimination or imaginative inabilities.
I think it's more a question of how to execute a class that checks the class fantasies /and/ has unique and interesting mechanics. Much like the problems with the psion, the monk at it's core, is just another martial, melee character and will suffer accordingly.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
As an experienced curmudgeon, I can say that I absolutely will not be big on the VTT unless they set it up so that you can customize everything, especially the setting and the look of it.
because I do not use the published worlds, very rarely use published adventures, and create all my stuff from scratch. Unless the VTT allows and enables that, it won’t even be a blip on my radar.
note that I don’t expect them to make it that way. The cost is immense, and they don’t have the manpower needed to do so, nor the budget. So don’t think I am saying I want them to do so — it will be designed to allow the play of adventures in worlds and settings they published, and odds are it will be a great tool.
but it won’t turn heads of old hands because those who have been playing for decades were essentially taught to create their own worlds, and so they did.
hell, I can’t even use the DDB character generation system here, because it doesn’t work for something that isn’t a published world — and even more so for one that draws on inspirations other than the original ones.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You have to have an insane amount of homebrew in character creation for the character generation here to not work in your home campaign. Character creation is nearly 100% world agnostic outside a couple of backgrounds.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Not really.
Optional Rules: Sanity, Spell Points. Neither work with DDB. Those are in the books -- if you use them, you cannot use the DDB system and the new VTT isn't going to fly.
All of the classes require a basis in a setting that is not agnostic -- Druids, as they are set up, requires some form of setting basis that allows for them. Cleris generally require some kind of set up where there are "gods of" something or other, Paladins require a similar structure.
Outside of Wizard, Fighter, Rogue (before subclasses), pretty much every class has something that is based in the setting (or they wouldn't exist, simply enough) -- it is more than just throwing some names out and saying "ok, this is a world. A setting takes each element and finds a way to give them a basi in the setting -- the "why do druids exist" kind of thing. Change some of the default expectations of what is supposed to be there that is built into the DDB, and you can't use the classes or sub classes.
Now let's say that you decide you want to take out all the Tolkien ideas, all the Moorcock ideas, all the Zelazny ideas, all the Norton ideas. Get something original and creative and fresh.
Now, I will grant you the "insane" part -- I have never been accused of being particularly sane except by the Courts that one time (giggle), but I have been doing that level of Homebrew since 1982 at least, lol. The way that Greyhawk and FR were combined was pretty much a given, but I still recall how incredibly involved FR was in its creation -- and I am not a fan of it (for me, it is a fine place).
But those first two items -- the optional rules, they aren't useful in DDB and won't be in the Vtt, most likely. And those two things don't even really require any homebrew -- they simply aren't something that is considered useful to enough people to be put into the VTT.
Plug of the moment: in my sig is a link to The Wyrlde Book. Just a setting -- not rules. THe rules are a lot more complicated, and there is no way to convert the new races and classes that are there into the DDB format -- simply because the DDB format has certain presuppositions built in that are essential for as many people as possible to be able to play.
All of that said, the goal of the VTT in a lot of ways is to solve the problem of "too few DMs" -- which is really "too few DMs who run games that are light on Homebrew ". And for that, it will be incredible -- just not very useful to old folks like me, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So far, all we've seen is the "easier" stuff to amend: classes, subclasses, origins, & species. We haven't seen any of the next easiest stuff to change or fix: spells. Well, we've seen one or two, here & there. And most of the changes have evoked (yes, I went there) controversy. I say "easy" because player options are what most people look at first and foremost anyway. Also, because player options are a good baseline from which to start, and then you can change other facets of the game to balance and accommodate to that baseline.
But we haven't seen any of the other changes yet:
Monsters and monster abilities. They've said that they won't be changing monster CRs, in the interest of backwards compatibility. So they need to make sure that any CR 1/2 Monsters don't have flesh to stone insta-kills, or something. How difficult monsters actually are will help determine how useful/powerful player combat abilities are.
The DMG. If they do this right, it could help solve the lack of DMs. But it also greatly affects player options, too. If the DMG has more rules about how to integrate setting and exploration, then many non-combat player abilities suddenly become more relevant. More emphasis on food, exploration, foraging, tracking means that everyone will want a Ranger in the party. More emphasis on traps and locks means everyone wants a Rogue. If social interactions are emphasized, then "face" classes and abilities will be coveted. Skill challenges will make Bards, Rogues, Arificers, etc have more useful features. If combat is somehow changed to eliminate the "whack-a-mole" combat style, then healing, damage mitigation, and battlefield control become more relevant.
Basically, how a game is run makes all the difference in how relevant and effective player abilities & features are. I'm not sure how they can codify those things. That's the sort of thing that should be figured out between the players & DM in a session zero- what kind of gameplay do the players enjoy? However, the DMG could help a DM in figuring these things out and have rules- or at least guidelines or ideas- in how to run them. Suggestions on how to make every class' features seem useful and worth having for their players should be included. As a player, nothing sucks worse than taking a class & thinking this feature or that will be awesome, only to have it never really come up (I'm looking at you, Rangers, with your tracking & foraging).
So yeah. Spells. Monsters. Dungeon Masters. There's a lot that still needs to be covered, before we can have a fuller understanding of even the player options they've presented so far.