OP, there are two kinds of hardcore players. You only listed one type, that being powergamers who build craft and focus on op builds
the other type are people who are hardcore into narrative, improv, and roleplaying. I fall into this other type. let’s call these players narrativists
narrativists also have issues with one dnd
The most common complaints among us narrativists is:
- clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks having their subclasses moved to level 3 ruins class flavor and story. How is a character supposed to be divinely blessed but can’t even cast divinely themed spells, not even cantrips like thaumaturgy or sacred flame? How is a cleric of a trickster god supposed to do trickster things without domains spells like charm person or disguise self?
- the removal of backgrounds, background features and background items. Things like prayer wheels or having retainers who shine your armor and pour your wine may not seem important to someone focused on combat and build crafting, but they are VERY important to people who love Roleplay and story
- removal of Roleplay centric class features in favor of combat features, instead of being improved upon. I’m talking things like enthralling performance going away. I loved glamour bard for that feature. I could charm an audience into saying nice things about me! But that’s no longer possible. The only way I could replicate that is using up a lot of spell slots… and that’s only till later in higher levels rather then level 3. And it would feel very wasteful.
- class and subclasses being ruined flavor wise in favor of, you guessed it, combat abilities. The archfey warlock was ruined in one dnd cause frankly, not all archfey patrons are Eladrin. A hag wouldn’t be misty stepping all over the place. Frankly, charming others is a lot more broadly fitting for archfey, not to mention it made the subclass about charming people. The fey charm ability should have been improved, not scrapped entirely.
- bastion system being flavor fully and narratively restricting. I can’t play as an ascendent dragon monk who tends to a sanctuary of Bahamut, I can’t play as a zealot barbarian tending to a sanctuary dedicated to Athena, and I can’t play as a war cleric with a war room. One dnd made it to where only clerics, Druids, paladins and rangers are allowed to be religious, made it to where only fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins can have training rooms or war rooms, etc etc.
I do think you’re right in that WoTC is catering to wargamers and not everyone else. I’d argue narraticists and casual gamers make up a larger chunk of the player base, with wargamers being the most vocal.
a lot of people hate the changes so much that they are ignoring the playtest cause they’ve already decided they aren’t going to use the 2024 rules
I think a major problem with this one dnd playtest is your changing things people love rather then making something new. And this is especially problematic when it’s an “update” to 5e rather than a new edition. So there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hurt feelings.
this isn’t a video game where even a bad update to a class is forgivable. This is a ttrpg about imagination and narrative. A horrible change to a class or subclass could ruin someone’s character concept. And this playtest is just part of the wider issue of wotc treating dnd like a video game rather then a ttrpg, no doubt that people like Chris Cao or those who used to work for Xbox are to blame. They’re taking their video game and gamey game philosophy to dnd, instead of recognizing that dnd is an entirely different beast then MTG or video games
examples of this include the upcoming vecna adventure having a “pre order bonus”, with that bonus being a one shot adventure. Does WoTC not realize we can just take the premise of that one shot… and make our own one shot? It isn’t a video game, WoTC can’t send pinkertons after us to gatekeep our imaginations. I’ll just take the premise of a murder mystery in Neverwinter involving vecna’s cult and make my own story from there as GM.
as a narrative focused player, I think you were to overly focused on game rules to 'give' your character narrative elements, many of those things should be freely created by the player, many things they had befor were good as suggestions, but codifying it implies people without those features can't do those things. Dnd, asper the phb is primarily about collaborative storytelling, you should be able to create any background that makes sense within the world/game you are playing. There doesnt need to be a formal rule declaring your characters religous path. Formal rules are about balance, mechanics, and generally adjucating things you don't know the outcome of.
backgrounds didnt go away, they still have tons of suggestions, and you can create your own background, for example.
Now, I will agree that DMs of some types are looking toward the book, and don't feel comfortable doing things not in the book, but I think the DMG should give them many suggestions, and encourage them to work with the players as long as it isnt messing up the game.
as a narrative focused player, I think you were to overly focused on game rules to 'give' your character narrative elements, many of those things should be freely created by the player, many things they had befor were good as suggestions, but codifying it implies people without those features can't do those things. Dnd, asper the phb is primarily about collaborative storytelling, you should be able to create any background that makes sense within the world/game you are playing. There doesnt need to be a formal rule declaring your characters religous path. Formal rules are about balance, mechanics, and generally adjucating things you don't know the outcome of.
100% Frankly, WOTC isn't very good at lore and fluff. They need to just provide me a mechanical chassis to build reasonable characters with, and let me figure out the hows and whys of how that character came to be.
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 rules that allow for players to have things like retainers for the purposes of things like AL or westmarches,
They are called side-kicks and were introduced in Tasha's. Westmarches has no coherent set of rules, different servers use different rulings. AL has pretty minimal RP since parties change session to session, and backgrounds mean basically nothing.
A few social features aren't a bad thing, they help shore up RP, compensate for things the IRL players aren't good at, and help provide some guidelines for DM's on what's a reasonable activity or suchlike for a given level. Honestly, the game needs a few Jedi Mind Trick features/spells/etc; as it is there's a very narrow field of social situations where I'd want to use a spell like Charm Person out of fear of provoking ongoing backlash if it fails, or even just once it wears off.
OP, there are two kinds of hardcore players. You only listed one type, that being powergamers who build craft and focus on op builds
the other type are people who are hardcore into narrative, improv, and roleplaying. I fall into this other type. let’s call these players narrativists
narrativists also have issues with one dnd
The most common complaints among us narrativists is:
Oh, please, don't act like these are the complaints of some kind of community or something. These are all completely yours, and when you've been all-too-vocal about them, everybodyhas disagreed. I suppose that's just the power gamer cabal trying to suppress you, huh?
- clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks having their subclasses moved to level 3 ruins class flavor and story. How is a character supposed to be divinely blessed but can’t even cast divinely themed spells, not even cantrips like thaumaturgy or sacred flame? How is a cleric of a trickster god supposed to do trickster things without domains spells like charm person or disguise self?
Feel free to start at third level. First level is for people who might not even know that they're divinely blessed yet.
- the removal of backgrounds, background features and background items. Things like prayer wheels or having retainers who shine your armor and pour your wine may not seem important to someone focused on combat and build crafting, but they are VERY important to people who love Roleplay and story
Retainers are lame and always have been. Most other background features are pointless, one is just 4 whole people. It's ridiculous.
Prayer wheels are trinkets that you can just have. Such things truly do not need to be codified. You might as well argue that you can't have a hat because it doesn't say common clothes include a hat. It's a hat, you can just friggin have it.
- removal of Roleplay centric class features in favor of combat features, instead of being improved upon. I’m talking things like enthralling performance going away. I loved glamour bard for that feature. I could charm an audience into saying nice things about me! But that’s no longer possible. The only way I could replicate that is using up a lot of spell slots… and that’s only till later in higher levels rather then level 3. And it would feel very wasteful.
This is an incredibly restrictive view of the changes that have been made. As has been pointed out in the past (to a convenient lack of response), Fighters and Barbarians, who previously had no out-of-combat features, now have out-of-combat features. Not half bad ones, either.
- bastion system being flavor fully and narratively restricting. I can’t play as an ascendent dragon monk who tends to a sanctuary of Bahamut, I can’t play as a zealot barbarian tending to a sanctuary dedicated to Athena, and I can’t play as a war cleric with a war room. One dnd made it to where only clerics, Druids, paladins and rangers are allowed to be religious, made it to where only fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins can have training rooms or war rooms, etc etc.
One D&D did not make it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers could be religious. One D&D made it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and those who took Magic Initiate for Cleric or Druid could cast spells because of their religions. Which is, in fact, how it's always been.
a lot of people hate the changes so much that they are ignoring the playtest cause they’ve already decided they aren’t going to use the 2024 rules
That's a ridiculous way to respond to a playtest. "I don't like the things that I see in the playtest, so I'm definitely not going to put in my vote to help make sure that the things I don't like don't end up in the finished product." I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a playtest. The entire point is that if you see something you don't like, you should say you don't like it.
I think a major problem with this one dnd playtest is your changing things people love rather then making something new. And this is especially problematic when it’s an “update” to 5e rather than a new edition. So there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hurt feelings.
God, how very dare they change things! In an update, no less!
examples of this include the upcoming vecna adventure having a “pre order bonus”, with that bonus being a one shot adventure. Does WoTC not realize we can just take the premise of that one shot… and make our own one shot? It isn’t a video game, WoTC can’t send pinkertons after us to gatekeep our imaginations. I’ll just take the premise of a murder mystery in Neverwinter involving vecna’s cult and make my own story from there as GM.
Well, by that logic, the entire concept of selling adventures is idiotic. Which it clearly isn't, on account of all the adventures that are sold.
A lot of bootlicking here, alright.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
[blockquote]Oh, please, don't act like these are the complaints of some kind of community or something. These are all completely yours, and when you've been all-too-vocal about them, everybodyhas disagreed. I suppose that's just the power gamer cabal trying to suppress you, huh?[/blockquote]
this is not true. When I have been vocal about them, plenty of people agreed with me. My posts in the D&DBeyond forums had people agree with me, and my posts on Reddit had people agree with me aswell. My posts on Reddit had received a lot of upvotes, hundreds even. I am even finding others posts that share the same concerns as mine.
Interesting thing about that there reddit post. It does not say that One D&D is making the situation worse; it highlights the new Primal Knowledge as exemplary. It does not say that Glamour Bard is ruined; in fact, it's only talking about martials. The only way it really agrees with you is that it says that non-combat features are nice, which is barely an opinion at all.
[blockquote]Feel free to start at third level. First level is for people who might not even know that they're divinely blessed yet.[/blockquote]
I as a player doesn’t have the option to choose to start at level 3, no matter how much I want to. While most gms will hear the arguement for level 3 and decide to start at level 3, there is still the issue of AL or westmarch servers. Also, a lot of GMs I’ve encountered will live and die by level 1, praising it as a good level for characters to truly feel like beginners.
Then it sounds like those systems and those DMs just don't jive with you. The rules do not exist to act as a shield between you and DMs that you don't like, they exist to facilitate play between you and DMs that you do like. It will always be true that no D&D is better than bad D&D, no matter how much you try to raise the bar of bad D&D.
what about arcana clerics. How can someone be a cleric of an arcane deity if they aren’t proficiency in the arcane skill or have wizard cantrips? With how arcana cleric is made, it would be bad to choose arcana as a background skill. That would be a waste of a skill since the subclass is supposed to give you arcana. But now your cleric of an arcane god isn’t even proficient in arcana for two levels. Sure, you could choose arcana from background but then it would be a total waste come level 3 cause the subclass gives you the skill.
Fair enough, but that's just because you're using a 2014 class on a 2024 chassis. It's not an inherent flaw, just growing pains. Any new subclass would eradicate that problem by saying "or gain proficiency in another skill of your choice if you're already proficient in Arcana."
[blockquote]
Retainers are lame and always have been. Most other background features are pointless, one is just 4 whole people. It's ridiculous.
Prayer wheels are trinkets that you can just have. Such things truly do not need to be codified. You might as well argue that you can't have a hat because it doesn't say common clothes include a hat. It's a hat, you can just friggin have it.
[/blockquote]
your acting like retainers are four different PCs controlled by one player. They are not. The variant noble background gives you three commoners who do tasks like shine your armor or pour you wine, but they don’t do anything else. The background makes it very clear that the retainers will not aid you in combat and in fact don’t even follow you into dangerous places. Your planning to ambush a bandit den? The retainers are going to be in town and wait for you to return.
I'm not acting like they're extra PCs, I'm acting like they're just straight up extra people that you have for no reason other than your background. Which they, y'know, are.
the other background features are not useless. They help gaurantee things that make sense for your character, especially for purposes of things like AL. It means that my acolyte can get things like food and lodging at temples instead of GM forcing me to roll persuasion… as a character who isn’t proficient… in order to persuade people who are my Allies and who follow the same god that I follow
Again, the rules are not there to shield you from bad DMs. If the only purpose a rule serves for you is letting you hold it up to your DM and say "ha ha, now you can't be mean to me," you oughtta get yourself a DM that doesn't want to be mean to you in the first place.
feylost guarantees my character can have things like an animal tail, something that some would argue has mechanical effects, and also means fey might visit my character in their sleep. More importantly, fey are going to be more friendly to my character cause they’re a feylost.
If you want an animal tail, find yourself a DM that's okay with you having an animal tail. Fey will only visit you in your sleep if the DM says they will. Fey will only be friendly to you if your DM says they will. Where's the advantage in codifying this?
Or what about haunted one? That background lets my character be partially possessed by a fiend or spirit, or always be followed by a spirit.
See above.
faceless one gives a reason for my character to wear a mask. It guarantees NPCs will react to my character if they get unmasked, such as if they are a redemption paladin who used to be a terrible villain responsible for the deaths of hundreds.
The faceless background guarantees no such thing.
It really sounds like you just want to use your rules to scream "INTERACT WITH ME" at the DM. If you've got a DM that doesn't want to do that anyways, then they aren't gonna have a good time, and if you've got a DM that does want to do that, you shouldn't have to scream at them to do it.
As for background items, they absolutely do have mechanical effects. A scroll of pedigree is proof of my character’s mobility, an electrum whistle that only fey can hear is self explanatory, a three dragon ante card depicting a faerie dragon being slipped into a game of three dragon ante is going to cause chaos at that card table. A faceless one’s mask keeps their identity a secret from the public, being unmasked could initiate combat or some other complication.
You wanna know some things that aren't mechanics? Nobility. Three dragon ante. Masks. My question, then, is thus: how do any of those have mechanical effects, any more than anything else you can think of? Besides the whistle, but that's an exception.
[blockquote]
One D&D did not make it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers could be religious. One D&D made it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and those who took Magic Initiate for Cleric or Druid could cast spells because of their religions. Which is, in fact, how it's always been.
[/blockquote]
im talking about bastions. And I’d argue it makes sense for a monk or zealot barbarian who follows a god to cast healing word once a day. But even if that is somehow an issue, then maybe the bastion rooms need to have different effects. Cause the prerequisites absolutely hurt things narratively. Playees want their zealot barbarians to have the ability to create a sanctuary dedicated to their deity, they wanr artificers and forge clerics to run a smithy, and they want their war clerics, monks, rogues and swords bards to have a training room and war room.
I'm talking about bastions as well. If you want a room that lets you cast Healing Word, you're gonna have to put your money where your mouth is (or your levels where your faith is) and either multiclass or take a feat. If you want a room where you can pray, absolutely nothing is stopping you.
[blockquote] That's a ridiculous way to respond to a playtest. "I don't like the things that I see in the playtest, so I'm definitely not going to put in my vote to help make sure that the things I don't like don't end up in the finished product." I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a playtest. The entire point is that if you see something you don't like, you should say you don't like it. [/blockquote]
I agree it is a little ridiculous. But it doesn’t change the fact that people have given up on the playtest and have decided not to use the 2024 rules. Considering it took boycotting and mass protests to get WoTC to back down from changing OGL, I don’t blame them entirely for thinking this way. WoTC has proven themselves to not be great at acting on feedback.
That is fundamentally not how boycotting works. You might as well protest the presidential candidate that you don't like by not voting.
[blockquote] Well, by that logic, the entire concept of selling adventures is idiotic. Which it clearly isn't, on account of all the adventures that are sold. [/blockquote]
Considering how poorly made a lot of DnD adventures are made, like HOTDQ being poorly made encounter wise and narratively, maybe WoTC should stop making and selling adventures and just focus on creating content for players and DMs to use like encounter guides or new subclasses.
There are many people who enjoy playing published adventures, and there are many others who don't have the time and/or energy to make their own campaigns. I don't know why you'd want to take the opportunity to play D&D away from those people.
But that’s besides the point, which you missed
My point was having a one shot as a pre order bonus is stupid cause people can run a similar adventure anyways.
My point was that your point can apply to any adventure. "Why would I pay for Lost Mine of Phandelver when I could just come up with my own campaign about a lost mine in a town called Phandelver?"
It’s also a little scummy. Someone put work into that one shot, and you not a select number of people are gonna be able to play it through legal means.
That's not scummy, that's selling intellectual property.
Even pre order bonuses in video games tend to just be things like an item or a cosmetic.
I thought we were trying to separate D&D and video games as much as possible. Now you're trying to hold up how video games do things as a standard that D&D should follow?
Additionally, pre order bonuses is not the same as selling an adventure. Things like curse of Strahd is always available to buy. But the one shot will not be, and could even become lost media if very few people pre order. It’s gatekeeping.
I suppose, fundamentally, the concept of exchanging currency for goods could be considered gatekeeping. But it's weird to apply that accusation so selectively.
Also, nothing is always available to buy. Everything goes out of print sooner or later.
However my main point is that pre order bonuses showcases that wotc is treating dnd like a video game instead of a narrative storytelling game
I'm very curious why the concept of a pre-order bonus is, to you, so completely antithetical to the concept of a narrative storytelling game.
A scroll of pedigree is proof of my character’s mobility
No, no it isn't. That's what legs are. You're thinking of legs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
backgrounds didnt go away, they still have tons of suggestions, and you can create your own background, for example.
except background features are going away. There’s no ability to have an animal tail, or an ability to have retainers. Just two skills, two languages/tools, and one feat. At that point, why even bother calling it a background.
in a few months, my AL character will lose her retainers :/
I think what your aren't getting, and people are trying to say is, these things aren't going away, they just aren't going to be linked to class mechanics, or a limited set of options that are predetermined. There are some actual features/mechanics/power that they are probably removing, but many of things you are describing aren't those type of things.
They should be the part of the game that you and the DM discuss and agree upon. They fall into the what is your character backstory part of the game. You shouldn't need a list to choose from to decide to be nobility, or a gangmember, you should just say, my character is noble. Maybe they are a noble and a gangmember. These things are best as inspiration/suggestions not hard rules or options.
This doesnt mean they have no benefits, or application, just that they don't need a specific formalized set of rules. In one game being a noble might mean you have a driver, in another it might mean you have a bonus to interacting with nobles, in another, both.
you shouldn't need to select from a list to have a keepsake from your tribe, if your character grew a tail from messing with the fey, they should have a tail.
By formalizing a lot of these things they created a sort of weird, I cant let you do X, because you didnt select N, or because it will make Gwen feel bad that you found out your a noble when you didn't choose that. Just like you said, (in your interpretation)if my background doesn't say in writing, I can have a tail, I can't have a tail. Thats a very limiting and poor take on how creative a player can get.
I get you might fear a dm wont let you do these things, but thats always a part of the game. The dm can exclude classes, or use new mechanics if they want. The dm and the player always need to see eye to eye on the game. The main thing is somehow letting the dm know that its OK to let players do these type of things, but that could be part of the dmg, or phb that isnt necessarily baked into char creation or class design.
also, many of these things aren't only in the phb, so they aren't going anywhere. You can still be a haunted one, its in ravenloft. It just means you might choose a different feat, and also be where you selects some skills, languages, and attributes
I just came on board, so I don't know what the difference is and would like an explanation. Is OneD&D not D&D?🤔
OneD&D is the new edition coming out later this year, and has playtest (Unearthed Arcana) material released that you can find here under Sources.
Usually when people say D&D separately they're probably referring to 5th edition, i.e- the current edition, or the game in general.
Personally I still hate the name OneD&D; I'll usually just called it 5.5e, or refer to the Unearthed Arcana itself since we don't actually know what the final print version will look like (we only know what they've showed us, which could still change before release).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Not really. And people didn't want to have to buy brand all brand new books.
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.
Not really. And people didn't want to have to buy brand all brand new books.
Don't you think this is bound to happen sooner or later ? Do you expect dnd 5. "x" for eons to last ?
Sorry for being so unconstructive, I expected more radical changes on the UA series.
Probably it will, but not for quite some time, I expect. 5e has been a massive success, and WotC is one of the few brands making money at Hasbro thanks to 5e and all its spin off products. So they'd be crazy to sunset 5e now at the height of its popularity.
Not really. And people didn't want to have to buy brand all brand new books.
Don't you think this is bound to happen sooner or later ? Do you expect dnd 5. "x" for eons to last ?
Sorry for being so unconstructive, I expected more radical changes on the UA series.
Probably it will, but not for quite some time, I expect. 5e has been a massive success, and WotC is one of the few brands making money at Hasbro thanks to 5e and all its spin off products. So they'd be crazy to sunset 5e now at the height of its popularity.
Yep, once the sales and the interest starts to wane then I could see a bigger change coming and a new edition. They’re still calling this 5E or 5E 2024?
The major revisions of D&D (3e, 4e, 5e; 1e->2e was really a minor release) were driven by
AD&D2e->3e: explosion of splatbooks made the game an unmanageable mess, and the system was definitely showing its age.
3e->4e: explosion of splatbooks made the game an unmanageable mess, and Wizards wanted to kill the OGL.
4e->5e: 4e wasn't selling well.
5e has so far managed to avoid the temptation to have an explosion of splatbooks, though there's still time, it took 22 years for AD&D to fall apart under its own weight.
It’s mostly just meant to make some systematic updates to 5e, and probably as a secondary consideration give them a way to bump up the MSRP on the core books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
as a narrative focused player, I think you were to overly focused on game rules to 'give' your character narrative elements, many of those things should be freely created by the player, many things they had befor were good as suggestions, but codifying it implies people without those features can't do those things. Dnd, asper the phb is primarily about collaborative storytelling, you should be able to create any background that makes sense within the world/game you are playing. There doesnt need to be a formal rule declaring your characters religous path. Formal rules are about balance, mechanics, and generally adjucating things you don't know the outcome of.
backgrounds didnt go away, they still have tons of suggestions, and you can create your own background, for example.
Now, I will agree that DMs of some types are looking toward the book, and don't feel comfortable doing things not in the book, but I think the DMG should give them many suggestions, and encourage them to work with the players as long as it isnt messing up the game.
100% Frankly, WOTC isn't very good at lore and fluff. They need to just provide me a mechanical chassis to build reasonable characters with, and let me figure out the hows and whys of how that character came to be.
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
They are called side-kicks and were introduced in Tasha's. Westmarches has no coherent set of rules, different servers use different rulings. AL has pretty minimal RP since parties change session to session, and backgrounds mean basically nothing.
A few social features aren't a bad thing, they help shore up RP, compensate for things the IRL players aren't good at, and help provide some guidelines for DM's on what's a reasonable activity or suchlike for a given level. Honestly, the game needs a few Jedi Mind Trick features/spells/etc; as it is there's a very narrow field of social situations where I'd want to use a spell like Charm Person out of fear of provoking ongoing backlash if it fails, or even just once it wears off.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Interesting thing about that there reddit post. It does not say that One D&D is making the situation worse; it highlights the new Primal Knowledge as exemplary. It does not say that Glamour Bard is ruined; in fact, it's only talking about martials. The only way it really agrees with you is that it says that non-combat features are nice, which is barely an opinion at all.
Then it sounds like those systems and those DMs just don't jive with you. The rules do not exist to act as a shield between you and DMs that you don't like, they exist to facilitate play between you and DMs that you do like. It will always be true that no D&D is better than bad D&D, no matter how much you try to raise the bar of bad D&D.
Fair enough, but that's just because you're using a 2014 class on a 2024 chassis. It's not an inherent flaw, just growing pains. Any new subclass would eradicate that problem by saying "or gain proficiency in another skill of your choice if you're already proficient in Arcana."
I'm not acting like they're extra PCs, I'm acting like they're just straight up extra people that you have for no reason other than your background. Which they, y'know, are.
Again, the rules are not there to shield you from bad DMs. If the only purpose a rule serves for you is letting you hold it up to your DM and say "ha ha, now you can't be mean to me," you oughtta get yourself a DM that doesn't want to be mean to you in the first place.
If you want an animal tail, find yourself a DM that's okay with you having an animal tail. Fey will only visit you in your sleep if the DM says they will. Fey will only be friendly to you if your DM says they will. Where's the advantage in codifying this?
See above.
You wanna know some things that aren't mechanics? Nobility. Three dragon ante. Masks. My question, then, is thus: how do any of those have mechanical effects, any more than anything else you can think of? Besides the whistle, but that's an exception.
I'm talking about bastions as well. If you want a room that lets you cast Healing Word, you're gonna have to put your money where your mouth is (or your levels where your faith is) and either multiclass or take a feat. If you want a room where you can pray, absolutely nothing is stopping you.
That is fundamentally not how boycotting works. You might as well protest the presidential candidate that you don't like by not voting.
There are many people who enjoy playing published adventures, and there are many others who don't have the time and/or energy to make their own campaigns. I don't know why you'd want to take the opportunity to play D&D away from those people.
My point was that your point can apply to any adventure. "Why would I pay for Lost Mine of Phandelver when I could just come up with my own campaign about a lost mine in a town called Phandelver?"
That's not scummy, that's selling intellectual property.
I thought we were trying to separate D&D and video games as much as possible. Now you're trying to hold up how video games do things as a standard that D&D should follow?
I suppose, fundamentally, the concept of exchanging currency for goods could be considered gatekeeping. But it's weird to apply that accusation so selectively.
Also, nothing is always available to buy. Everything goes out of print sooner or later.
I'm very curious why the concept of a pre-order bonus is, to you, so completely antithetical to the concept of a narrative storytelling game.
Oh, also, minor thing, but...
No, no it isn't. That's what legs are. You're thinking of legs.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think what your aren't getting, and people are trying to say is, these things aren't going away, they just aren't going to be linked to class mechanics, or a limited set of options that are predetermined. There are some actual features/mechanics/power that they are probably removing, but many of things you are describing aren't those type of things.
They should be the part of the game that you and the DM discuss and agree upon. They fall into the what is your character backstory part of the game. You shouldn't need a list to choose from to decide to be nobility, or a gangmember, you should just say, my character is noble. Maybe they are a noble and a gangmember. These things are best as inspiration/suggestions not hard rules or options.
This doesnt mean they have no benefits, or application, just that they don't need a specific formalized set of rules. In one game being a noble might mean you have a driver, in another it might mean you have a bonus to interacting with nobles, in another, both.
you shouldn't need to select from a list to have a keepsake from your tribe, if your character grew a tail from messing with the fey, they should have a tail.
By formalizing a lot of these things they created a sort of weird, I cant let you do X, because you didnt select N, or because it will make Gwen feel bad that you found out your a noble when you didn't choose that. Just like you said, (in your interpretation)if my background doesn't say in writing, I can have a tail, I can't have a tail. Thats a very limiting and poor take on how creative a player can get.
I get you might fear a dm wont let you do these things, but thats always a part of the game. The dm can exclude classes, or use new mechanics if they want. The dm and the player always need to see eye to eye on the game. The main thing is somehow letting the dm know that its OK to let players do these type of things, but that could be part of the dmg, or phb that isnt necessarily baked into char creation or class design.
also, many of these things aren't only in the phb, so they aren't going anywhere. You can still be a haunted one, its in ravenloft. It just means you might choose a different feat, and also be where you selects some skills, languages, and attributes
The disconnect I'm aware of between 'hardcore' players and regular players is:
I wouldn’t say weird is independent of the other three options.
I just came on board, so I don't know what the difference is and would like an explanation. Is OneD&D not D&D?🤔
OneD&D is the new edition coming out later this year, and has playtest (Unearthed Arcana) material released that you can find here under Sources.
Usually when people say D&D separately they're probably referring to 5th edition, i.e- the current edition, or the game in general.
Personally I still hate the name OneD&D; I'll usually just called it 5.5e, or refer to the Unearthed Arcana itself since we don't actually know what the final print version will look like (we only know what they've showed us, which could still change before release).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
OneD&D was a working name that Wizards has abandoned (their current nomenclature is just '2024') but people still talk about.
I still don't understand why they dindt give up the whole 5ed and start afresh over a whole new concept.
Aren't you tired enough of 5e after 10 years?
Not really. And people didn't want to have to buy brand all brand new books.
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
Don't you think this is bound to happen sooner or later ? Do you expect dnd 5. "x" for eons to last ?
Sorry for being so unconstructive, I expected more radical changes on the UA series.
Probably it will, but not for quite some time, I expect. 5e has been a massive success, and WotC is one of the few brands making money at Hasbro thanks to 5e and all its spin off products. So they'd be crazy to sunset 5e now at the height of its popularity.
Yep, once the sales and the interest starts to wane then I could see a bigger change coming and a new edition. They’re still calling this 5E or 5E 2024?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The major revisions of D&D (3e, 4e, 5e; 1e->2e was really a minor release) were driven by
5e has so far managed to avoid the temptation to have an explosion of splatbooks, though there's still time, it took 22 years for AD&D to fall apart under its own weight.
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
OneD&D is mostly about smoothing out rough edges that have been noticed in the last ten years.
It’s mostly just meant to make some systematic updates to 5e, and probably as a secondary consideration give them a way to bump up the MSRP on the core books.