I really love the OneD&D rules. Like, I REALLY like using them. (Only minor gripe is that dragonborn only live to 80).
Is there ANY news on when the next OneD&D playtest will be released? It's been a few months now and I'm excited to see what they do next. I'm hoping for the martial classes.
They've fallen seriously behind their "every month some new stuff to test" pledge. We literally created a campaign just to run playtest material and they're not putting things out fast enough to matter. I think some decent things are generally coming out of the playtest, but this is nowhere near quick enough to cover the range of changes that should be in the new edition.
Doing it piecemeal is bad enough for a playtest. Doing it piecemeal and really slowly is non-functional.
In my opinion the next UA will be very extensive. Why? Well, because surely they have been holding the stuff they had due to the climate derived from the blunder with the OGL. And make sense, since nobody would have spoken about the UA. And, furthermore, the results of the survey would have been altered either by low participation, or by participations in which everything would have been scored negatively. Don't be surprised if in the next UA we see both the two missing priest classes and the warriors.
I'm starting to get seriously concerned about the pace of playtest. The time is limited, and we might not just get enough iterations.
True. The Open Game License situation may have caused the delay, though it is still extremely frustrating that the new UAs are coming out spaced so far apart.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
It's easier and easier to shift my attention to things like Project Black Flag and other TPP.
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
It's easier and easier to shift my attention to things like Project Black Flag and other TPP.
No, but it doesn't work like that. Different options are presented, and the community votes on them. We should see the classes already seen more times, but with different corrections or options. What has been presented so far does not have to be definitive.
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
It's easier and easier to shift my attention to things like Project Black Flag and other TPP.
No, but it doesn't work like that. Different options are presented, and the community votes on them. We should see the classes already seen more times, but with different corrections or options. What has been presented so far does not have to be definitive.
They're not on pace to do that either. They're moving too slowly to even get feedback on the basic class changes, much less go through revisions and try different tweaks.
Honestly, by the time you start a playtest, you should have most things mapped out, and have a couple different ways to handle a few things. (Like with how to handle skill tests and inspiration.) You should have a lot of information available to put out on a regular basis, and you should do so.
Then, get the feedback, see if your plans line up well or if you need to make adjustments. Adapt to what people like or don't like, and when they point out problematic areas.
If they want a proper playtest with time to matter, they need to release things more quickly. They need to release iterations more promptly. They may even want to put competing rule ideas in the same playtest head-to-head and get info on which ones appealed more to people as well as which ones seemed to work better.
I've filled out every survey and put some detailed explanations of opinions in. (Heck...I often could have used more space.) But these delays are wasting time and they're going to start competing with other systems that are playtesting.
They should be aiming to aggressively engage the player base rather than go months with no updates.
Although I am pretty excited about updates to the upcoming druid and paladin changes that I assume to be next, I am most excited about how the monk will use the new Unarmed Strike. I can imagine the monk kicking its opponent across the room - punch by kick by headbutt! LOL
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
What do you mean? The Expert Class UA had 3 classes with one subclass each (Bard, Ranger, and Rogue) and the most recent UA had one class (Cleric), so we have 4 classes with one subclass each at this point, not 2. At this point we have seen the first iteration of 1/3 of the classes in the base OneD&D PHB as well as changes to feats and other rules and mechanics on top of that. I do hope that the next few iterations have more content than the most recent UA, but I dont think your estimate is correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My prediction is the next UA will have druid, pally and a revised rogue.
But, besides the rogue, I don't think those are the classes we really need to see at this point. Paladins and druids are going to see the least amount of changes by comparison to all the other classes we haven't seen yet.
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
What do you mean? The Expert Class UA had 3 classes with one subclass each (Bard, Ranger, and Rogue) and the most recent UA had one class (Cleric), so we have 4 classes with one subclass each at this point, not 2. At this point we have seen the first iteration of 1/3 of the classes in the base OneD&D PHB as well as changes to feats and other rules and mechanics on top of that. I do hope that the next few iterations have more content than the most recent UA, but I dont think your estimate is correct.
OK, I'll revise.
It was two months between sharing the three Expert classes and sharing one Priest class, each with only one subclass each. It's been 10 weeks since, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 4 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace (taking the most recent release as the ongoing trend based on them saying they would start doing smaller playtests more frequently) for it to take more than one and a half years to have a single subclass for each base class.
I'm starting to get seriously concerned about the pace of playtest. The time is limited, and we might not just get enough iterations.
Sometimes I wonder if this playtest is more for show. They know they need to have a public playtest to invest people, but I am not sure they are taking it seriously as a playtest. More of a tweak a few things test. The first release should have been all the classes levels 1-3 or 1-5 with some new rule ideas. Maybe with a play test adventure to collect data on standards of play so things like the balance due to 6-8 encounters thing does not happen again.
What we have got does not seem like something people can easily play test. The rules, we have been able to decently, but random class slapped in with no idea how it will feel as every other class is from 5e has not gone great.
I'm starting to get seriously concerned about the pace of playtest. The time is limited, and we might not just get enough iterations.
Sometimes I wonder if this playtest is more for show. They know they need to have a public playtest to invest people, but I am not sure they are taking it seriously as a playtest. More of a tweak a few things test. The first release should have been all the classes levels 1-3 or 1-5 with some new rule ideas. Maybe with a play test adventure to collect data on standards of play so things like the balance due to 6-8 encounters thing does not happen again.
What we have got does not seem like something people can easily play test. The rules, we have been able to decently, but random class slapped in with no idea how it will feel as every other class is from 5e has not gone great.
Agreed. I was going to begin playtesting 1dd but decided not to given that my players probably didn't all want to be experts and clerics. Besides, I don't know if 1dd expected power level is ok for use in any WotC campaigns or even my homebrew ones.
I have no doubt that they take the playtest seriously. Why wouldn't they take it seriously? The surveys that they do in the playtest are not only useful for the testing itself, but also, and especially, as a market study. I can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't want to take the playtest seriously, frankly. It would be very stupid of WoTC to have such valuable information, and ignore it. There is no point in doubting that.
A different case is regarding what we write in the optional boxes. they're going to ignore design advice, because they don't care. They already pay professionals to design the game. What they want us to write there are our experiences. I liked this, I didn't. This works fine, this doesn't. On my table this feature made combat too easy, or exploration boring, etc... That's what they want, and need us to write. And in the most succinct way possible, since they do not read it, but cross data with big data techniques. What in no case do they need us to write are suggestions about the mathematics of the game or specific mechanics that we come up with.
But of course they take the surveys seriously. Other companies would like to have those tools, and the active community that D&D has.
And I'm going to give two examples that show that WoTC takes the playtest seriously: D&D Next, where many things were changed at the request of the playtesters; and Jeremy Crawford's interviews in which he talks about the One D&D playtest results. Why was he going to invent the test percentages? What's the point of that?
It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
What do you mean? The Expert Class UA had 3 classes with one subclass each (Bard, Ranger, and Rogue) and the most recent UA had one class (Cleric), so we have 4 classes with one subclass each at this point, not 2. At this point we have seen the first iteration of 1/3 of the classes in the base OneD&D PHB as well as changes to feats and other rules and mechanics on top of that. I do hope that the next few iterations have more content than the most recent UA, but I dont think your estimate is correct.
OK, I'll revise.
It was two months between sharing the three Expert classes and sharing one Priest class, each with only one subclass each. It's been 10 weeks since, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 4 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace (taking the most recent release as the ongoing trend based on them saying they would start doing smaller playtests more frequently) for it to take more than one and a half years to have a single subclass for each base class.
If you are constructing your trend based on the assumption that they are only going to release smaller playtests, then you also have to assume that they will be released more frequently than they have been thus far, as both are part of the same statement from the design team. The 10 week delay since the last one is off-putting for sure, but not likely what they meant when they said they would be releasing "more frequently" . Id caution a guess that this hiatus is in response to the OGL discussion, and not a realistic reflection of their desired pace.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I would appreciate if they just said, hey yes we were planning on releasing the next playtest in January, but with everything going on we are instead releasing a bigger playtest later this month for example. Just anything really from them to reset expectation for the release schedule, people just don't like being in the dark, any communication is better than silence, which I feel like should have been one of the key learnings for them recently.
I really love the OneD&D rules. Like, I REALLY like using them. (Only minor gripe is that dragonborn only live to 80).
Is there ANY news on when the next OneD&D playtest will be released? It's been a few months now and I'm excited to see what they do next. I'm hoping for the martial classes.
I believe that it was stated that Druid and Paladin was next in order to complete the Priest group.
Hopefully soon.
I to am excited and waiting for the Warrior playtest and was hoping it was next. Oh well, its been a long wait for the next play test.
I'm starting to get seriously concerned about the pace of playtest. The time is limited, and we might not just get enough iterations.
They've fallen seriously behind their "every month some new stuff to test" pledge. We literally created a campaign just to run playtest material and they're not putting things out fast enough to matter. I think some decent things are generally coming out of the playtest, but this is nowhere near quick enough to cover the range of changes that should be in the new edition.
Doing it piecemeal is bad enough for a playtest. Doing it piecemeal and really slowly is non-functional.
In my opinion the next UA will be very extensive. Why? Well, because surely they have been holding the stuff they had due to the climate derived from the blunder with the OGL. And make sense, since nobody would have spoken about the UA. And, furthermore, the results of the survey would have been altered either by low participation, or by participations in which everything would have been scored negatively.
Don't be surprised if in the next UA we see both the two missing priest classes and the warriors.
True. The Open Game License situation may have caused the delay, though it is still extremely frustrating that the new UAs are coming out spaced so far apart.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It was two months between sharing the first class and the second. It's been 10 weeks after getting that 2nd class with one subclass, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 2 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace for it to take more than 2 years to have a single subclass for each base class.
It's easier and easier to shift my attention to things like Project Black Flag and other TPP.
No, but it doesn't work like that. Different options are presented, and the community votes on them.
We should see the classes already seen more times, but with different corrections or options.
What has been presented so far does not have to be definitive.
They're not on pace to do that either. They're moving too slowly to even get feedback on the basic class changes, much less go through revisions and try different tweaks.
Honestly, by the time you start a playtest, you should have most things mapped out, and have a couple different ways to handle a few things. (Like with how to handle skill tests and inspiration.) You should have a lot of information available to put out on a regular basis, and you should do so.
Then, get the feedback, see if your plans line up well or if you need to make adjustments. Adapt to what people like or don't like, and when they point out problematic areas.
If they want a proper playtest with time to matter, they need to release things more quickly. They need to release iterations more promptly. They may even want to put competing rule ideas in the same playtest head-to-head and get info on which ones appealed more to people as well as which ones seemed to work better.
I've filled out every survey and put some detailed explanations of opinions in. (Heck...I often could have used more space.) But these delays are wasting time and they're going to start competing with other systems that are playtesting.
They should be aiming to aggressively engage the player base rather than go months with no updates.
Although I am pretty excited about updates to the upcoming druid and paladin changes that I assume to be next, I am most excited about how the monk will use the new Unarmed Strike. I can imagine the monk kicking its opponent across the room - punch by kick by headbutt! LOL
What do you mean? The Expert Class UA had 3 classes with one subclass each (Bard, Ranger, and Rogue) and the most recent UA had one class (Cleric), so we have 4 classes with one subclass each at this point, not 2. At this point we have seen the first iteration of 1/3 of the classes in the base OneD&D PHB as well as changes to feats and other rules and mechanics on top of that. I do hope that the next few iterations have more content than the most recent UA, but I dont think your estimate is correct.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My prediction is the next UA will have druid, pally and a revised rogue.
But, besides the rogue, I don't think those are the classes we really need to see at this point. Paladins and druids are going to see the least amount of changes by comparison to all the other classes we haven't seen yet.
OK, I'll revise.
It was two months between sharing the three Expert classes and sharing one Priest class, each with only one subclass each. It's been 10 weeks since, and everything else aside, I've got to ask, WTH. With 12 classes in the basic rules, and only 4 shown with only 1 subclass each, we are on pace (taking the most recent release as the ongoing trend based on them saying they would start doing smaller playtests more frequently) for it to take more than one and a half years to have a single subclass for each base class.
Sometimes I wonder if this playtest is more for show. They know they need to have a public playtest to invest people, but I am not sure they are taking it seriously as a playtest. More of a tweak a few things test. The first release should have been all the classes levels 1-3 or 1-5 with some new rule ideas. Maybe with a play test adventure to collect data on standards of play so things like the balance due to 6-8 encounters thing does not happen again.
What we have got does not seem like something people can easily play test. The rules, we have been able to decently, but random class slapped in with no idea how it will feel as every other class is from 5e has not gone great.
Agreed. I was going to begin playtesting 1dd but decided not to given that my players probably didn't all want to be experts and clerics. Besides, I don't know if 1dd expected power level is ok for use in any WotC campaigns or even my homebrew ones.
DMing:
Dragons of Stormwreck Isle
Playing:
None sadly.
Optimization Guides:
Literally Too Angry to Die - A Guide to Optimizing a Barbarian
I have no doubt that they take the playtest seriously. Why wouldn't they take it seriously? The surveys that they do in the playtest are not only useful for the testing itself, but also, and especially, as a market study.
I can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't want to take the playtest seriously, frankly. It would be very stupid of WoTC to have such valuable information, and ignore it. There is no point in doubting that.
A different case is regarding what we write in the optional boxes. they're going to ignore design advice, because they don't care. They already pay professionals to design the game. What they want us to write there are our experiences. I liked this, I didn't. This works fine, this doesn't. On my table this feature made combat too easy, or exploration boring, etc... That's what they want, and need us to write. And in the most succinct way possible, since they do not read it, but cross data with big data techniques. What in no case do they need us to write are suggestions about the mathematics of the game or specific mechanics that we come up with.
But of course they take the surveys seriously. Other companies would like to have those tools, and the active community that D&D has.
And I'm going to give two examples that show that WoTC takes the playtest seriously: D&D Next, where many things were changed at the request of the playtesters; and Jeremy Crawford's interviews in which he talks about the One D&D playtest results. Why was he going to invent the test percentages? What's the point of that?
If you are constructing your trend based on the assumption that they are only going to release smaller playtests, then you also have to assume that they will be released more frequently than they have been thus far, as both are part of the same statement from the design team. The 10 week delay since the last one is off-putting for sure, but not likely what they meant when they said they would be releasing "more frequently" . Id caution a guess that this hiatus is in response to the OGL discussion, and not a realistic reflection of their desired pace.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I really want to see what is next for OneD&D too.
I would appreciate if they just said, hey yes we were planning on releasing the next playtest in January, but with everything going on we are instead releasing a bigger playtest later this month for example. Just anything really from them to reset expectation for the release schedule, people just don't like being in the dark, any communication is better than silence, which I feel like should have been one of the key learnings for them recently.
I have been DMing 5e since it came out and love the changes that the UA have proposed thus far. The question I have is: WHEN DO WE GET MORE?