The Community when One D&D was Announced
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- **READ BEFORE WATCHING
**
This sketch DOES NOT represent the
D&D/TTRPG community as a whole. To them I say,
“I love you and keep being you!”
This sketch DOES represent those who give us D&D fans
a bad name by being loud and taking the wrong steps
in bettering the future of this game. And to them I say,
“You’re in this sketch, and you play as the DM.”
Become a Member/ Patreon
► / oneshotquesters
► / @oneshotquesters
Subscribe to our other TH-cam Channels!
One Shot Questers ► / oneshotquestersofficial
One Shot Qampaigns ► / @oneshotquests
OSQ Social Media Links
Discord ► / discord
Twitch! ► / oneshotquesters
Twitter! ► / oneshotquesters
Instagram! ► / oneshotquesters
Facebook! ► / oneshotquesters
► Contact One Shot Questers
oneshotquest@gmail.com
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #onednd
I will now be trying to work "So what has your dice rolling nat1's today?" into my daily life as a phrase to use!
Definitely a great phrase!
This is basically all I took away from this video
Brilliant line.
Are you communicate only with geeks? No one else will understand that
i truly loved that line
"I am Happy but I wanna be pissed off about it"
Me when I'm playing my friends campaign instead of DMing
Basiuclly dming as well. player does something stupid but works
Wait so you love to be the fover DM?
@@user-vg7mk8ur9c we’re a rare breed 😂
@@user-vg7mk8ur9c yes
@@liamroberts5375great I be happy if you online DM for me (One group Kick me and group two just stop playing because this take to much time from they life) and of you do know I going to be dragonbron paladin just for you know ok (I don't stop to play am unit he will finish one campain) so tell me if you in to DM for me
The DM in this sketch is basically the barbarian that can't stop the rage feat.
Dealing himself psychic, sonic, or physical damage every turn to keep it going.
Maybe he's the hulk
Barbarians stop using the rage feat?
@@foxmcld584 Sonic? Wasn't it Thunder damage?
Remember kids. DnD is not a video game which forces you to use stuff. You can ignore anything you don’t like and use what you do like. This has always been one of DnD’s biggest strengths has it not?
You do have a point. People are just passionate I think.
Yeah for real. I can legit just take everything I like about One D&D and apply it to the game and boom, perfect experience.
i'd go even further: it has always been one of TTRPG's biggest strenght
So it's ok for WotC to be lazy and backwards with the tabletop game that could have simply not been butchered? You don't sound like a DnD fan to me.
Then it's just minecraft (jk)
WotC: *changes the official lore of established races*
DMs: Cool. *tosses that out for their own homebrewed lore.*
Still don't understand why tortles only live to 50
@@insanemang9983 Right? They really missed an opportunity there.
Or for me
WotC: changes official lore
Me: continues to use old lore because I run all my campaigns in the same world
I recognize that the coastal wizards have made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
Tortles would live as long as dwarves, like 400 years, but they die young because they like fighting
To be fair, the original title of 5e was "DnD Next". It's gonna be called 6th edition.
To be honest, it's closer to 5.5e than 6e. It still uses almost all of 5e's rules so far, with the biggest changes being nat 20s/grappling. We'll see how much more it changes, but it doesn't really deserve its own edition.
@@TaismoFanBoy Well, yeah, but it's obviously heading towards a 6e release
@@JohnySlama I hope 6e isn't just 5th with a bandaid. That'd be massively disappointing.
@@TaismoFanBoy both of those rules I already houserule anyways, although for crits I go the opposite direction they did (making them stronger instead of weaker) and making grapples stronger.... I'll keep using my homebrew rules. I only have a few houserules: grapples, crits, conjure animals etc go on the casters initiative count, I don't track nonmagical ammunition, and I use the old version of healing spirit. I've probably got other minor ones but I do try to choose carefully what I change because people build their characters based around the assumption that a game is going to be run mostly RAW, and having too many houserules makes it a lot to keep up with. So I don't want to sound like I don't care what the official rules are, I do care quite a bit. But the two biggest rule changes were ones I already changed anyways so I'm not getting super worked up about it.
its not an edition change require an underlying change of the fundamentel math. there is no change to that
It should have ended with the DM interrupting with: "they also added crits to skills and saving throws"
Bard: they're monsters!!!!
Honestly, I don’t care about the saves, I expect those to be fringe cases where it changes the outcome; I am very dubious about skill checks, though. I prefer the “you can certainly try” approach, and a Nat 20 being a freebie is going to discourage that
@@willieoelkers5568 The main issue with crit on skill check is what about skill check that have variable results, like the infernal puzzle box:
It's a DC30 Investigation check to open, and if you fail by 5 or more, you take 12d6 psychic damage.
Someone with a +7 should roll to see if he takes the damage or not, but he shouldn't get to open it even on a 27.
@@arthurgraton7165 There's that too, yeah.
I did the playtest on diferent builds with my friends and a weird thing happened: a contested skillcheck where a lower number win because of 'nat20' and the higher number fail since 'nat1':
One character has a +17 on acrobatics (bard with expertise) and the wizard has a -3 on athletics, and for turns of the oneshot, the wizard tried to grapple the bard, and the a contested roll happened: the bard rolled a nat1 and the wizard a nat20... the bard gets a 18 total and the wizard gets a 17 total... but in this case, the wizard wins the contest and the bard player call this BS and the wizard agrees, it makes no sense for skills or tools...
there's times where is simple impossible but you have to roll for it or the player "wants" to roll/try, even if is not possible (and they can certainly try 😈 )
Pd: We were just checking some rules of onednd, not all at once first, so the new 'grapple' ones were not used on this case but features like the Insightful fighting of the inquisitive rogue works the same way of a contested skill check
@@arthurgraton7165 Just to weigh in here, and apologies for the lengthy post.
The One D&D playtest rules specifically provided a range for which PCs get to make rolls. If the number needed is less than 5, they automatically succeed, no roll needed. If its over 30, success is not possible, no roll is made. The rules were not particularly clear as to whether the "number" is referring to the DC or the amount the player would need to roll in addition to their modifiers.
If the "number" is referring to the DC, that wouldn't seem right as it is very possible for a character to have as much as a +17 bonus on a skill before adding in bonuses from spells and magic items (6 proficiency + 6 expertise + 5 from attribute), and could get over 30 before you even look at the D20 roll with enough help from spells/items. So with that in mind, I am interpreted the "number" as being the amount the player needs to roll to succeed with their current skill bonus. Bonuses from Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Emboldening Bond, and similar effects can easily add +10 or more to a roll, so it is very reasonable for a nat 20 roll to get pushed to a number over 30 with some help. This makes sense to me as the basis for a nat 20 to be a critical success even if you don't have those bonus effects - if a little boost of magic "luck" can do it, then why not let natural luck do the same?
So with all that in mind, let's look at the classic example of convincing the king to hand over his kingdom. If I set the DC at 100, nobody will even get to attempt to make the check since it is impossible to succeed because it is not possible to get a +70 bonus to a skill.
However, if I decide the king is frustrated by all the political intrigue, assassination attempts and whatnot, maybe I set the DC at 45. Now the bard with max CHA and expertise in Persuasion (+17) can beat the DC if they get a 30 from dice rolls, so they get to make the roll. Its unlikely that anyone else will have a bonus that high in the same party, so its just the bard, and they only get one shot at it. If the bard gets a nat 20, then they succeed. It is effectively just bumping their roll from a "20" to a "30", and that is a success because they would not have been allowed to roll at all if it wouldn't be. Again, even though their total is only 37 against the DC 45, they could easily have covered the remaining 8 with bonuses from spells and abilities, so the rules are saying to just give it to them.
So what does this mean for your puzzle box? Well, any character with a negative modifier on their Investigation will just look at the box in bewilderment, completely unable to figure out how to manipulate it - they don't even get to roll. Anyone with a +0 through +10 can attempt to solve the box and they get a whopping 5% chance of a success, but they have a 95% chance of failure. For those characters, it comes down to a matter of luck. Characters at +11 or better naturally have increasingly better chances of success.
Adding in bonuses from Bless, Bardic Inspiration and similar effects might improve the chances of success for anyone at +0 through +9, and will improve the chances of success for anyone at +10 or higher, but won't help those with the negative modifier - they still wouldn't get to try, even with a dozen such effects on them, because they are simply not competent enough to even luck their way into a success regardless of how much magical assistance their friend can give them. Only spells/effects that increase the base attribute or the skill bonus itself would change that (e.g. Gloves of Thievery, Pass Without Trace).
Now to address the point of the variable results - the character with the +7 would have a 5% chance of successfully opening the box, a 5% chance of failing to open the box and not taking damage, and a 90% chance of having their brain frazzled for 12d6 damage. By comparison, a character with a +9 has the same chance of successfully opening the box, but has a 15% percent chance of failing and not taking damage, and only an 80% chance of getting blasted. The variable success/fail still works for any skill level above +7, but it falls off on the lower end of the spectrum, as all characters with a +0 through +6 have a 5% chance of success and a 95% chance of failing and taking damage. However, it should be noted that most characters that are NOT proficient in a skill are going to fall into the +0 to +6 range, or will be in the negatives.
By restricting who can even make the check to characters within 30 of being able to succeed, we are preventing the unskilled from being able to succeed where the experts fail. Applying variable DC effects gives adventurers with natural talents a 5% chance of succeeding on anything that is reasonable to succeed at doing with some luck, but they will suffer harsh consequences for attempting things they aren't skilled at if luck fails them. Meanwhile, only those with expertise or considerable focus on a skill have a greater than 5% chance at success, and they also have a chance at failing with lesser consequences that others do not have.
TL;DR - if the rules are applied properly, the crit/fail on saves and skill checks make sense and still works with variable DCs. No comment on changes to combat crits..
I was with you all the way up until the cost part. I like dndbeyond as a concept, so I don't have to search through several books to get all the stuff I need. What I dislike is having to buying the books and then pay a monthly subscription to get all the features. It seems like they're really pushing people towards that.
That hasn't been announced or even suggested by a WotC source. I've only seen crazy alarmists freak out about it online like the D&D Police are gonna break up their home game if they don't pay to play.
Realistically though, what features do you think would be held back? Especially since D&D Beyond is free.
@@Ambiguousakira how is it free? I bought the physical books, but if I want to use them for my campaign, I have to buy them again on DND Beyond. And on top of that, I have to pay a monthly subscription so my players can use the features they need for their characters.
It would be way better that if you buy the originals books, you can unlock them on DND Beyond as well. Why would I need to buy them twice?
@@merenwen4495 so basically have each book you buy come with a D&D Beyond code as well? Shouldn't be that hard to implement.
@@kelvinle8662 yeah indeed, something like that.
@@merenwen4495 While it would be good now, got to remember that WotC bought D&DBeyond. It initially was its own thing, so figuring out who owns what physical book and then tying it to their account will be a pain to confirm. While it's likely to be something they will do moving forwards, those who have existing ones, aren't going to just suddenly have a code pop out for them to redeem in their back cover.
My problem with One DnD is... well... anyone can raise their voice and feedback and that might mean popularity contests.
Wich to me is never the best idea in the world, but hey.. people will homebrew so it's kinda a non issue.
Well... At least they won't do a Minecraft Mob style vote? Not much can be worse than that...
maybe they’ll add optional rules like in the Dungeon Master’s Guide
They can just take multiple ideas for a rule (fe crits), put the most popular one as main rule and the rest as variants. I think that's the best aproach when you are asking big communities for feedback.
Just because they’re taking feedback doesn’t necessarily mean they’re following majority rules on all the changes
10,000 players could ‘suggest’ that the Wizard class get a d20 as their hit die and that wouldn’t mean it gets implemented.
Despite there being a bunch of loud people, There's a lot of genuine criticism for One D&D. Things like how good will collective shared spells lists be instead of spell lists per class and if the VTT will become a microtransaction hellscape or not. Without seeing them in action, it's very hard to tell how good or bad a lot of these changes will be. Not to mention, 5e is the first time D&D has ever been THIS big. With how rocky the history of D&D is, it could end up as history repeating itself if they aren't careful.
The VTT could either be a subscription service or a microtransaction laden product, either way the majority of people will ignore its existence. If its terrible, then its optional so it will have limited impact.
@@Wertbag99 Unless they strip the usage rights from things like Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 to make it the only way to play with a VTT....which would be a very Hasbro thing to do
@@Dietsteve It wouldn't make any sense to do so, it would destroy their fan base and be basically suicide. Not to say there haven't been stupid corporate decisions in the past, but at least currently there is no mention of them doing something like that.
I would be skeptical of the VTT given how Arena has a broken and unfair economy, and how MTGO just can't handle anything new or big essentially, Wizards never seemed to care about an intricate online platform
But that deserves caution, not sheer vitriol XD
TBF, my main issue with the new DnD edition is mostly that they're trying to integrate online tools into it again. For one thing, they don't have the best track record with that as a lot of their previous attempts are trying to integrate their material into an online format has usually fallen flat on its face or ended up fairly lack luster. It also makes me legit worried they're going to start going after 3rd party groups that already provide incredibly robust tools like Roll20. Its not like wizards of the coast have the best track record when it comes to dealing with 3rd party content producers.
Just gonna gloss over the part where they’ve moved to a predatory monetisation system designed to exploit players with purchase control issues? The same way micro-transaction and skins do in video games.
One D&D is primarily WOTC trying to get a slice of the profit that games like 40k gets. A game with a MUCH smaller player base, but generates WAY more revenue.
The only thing that bugs me is the crit thing. It's a rare thing and unless you lucked out and chose some massive spell before rolling, then it doesn't make much of a difference. Hell, alot of tables have homebrew rules for crits to make them more exciting.
If anything, I think rather than nerf casters, martial should get buffed. Not like give them a mountain of dice to roll, but add an effect. Like an archer can pin an enemy's foot to the ground or something in that vein.
There are few things in the game as triumphant or exciting as a crit. I don’t think that should be taken down in anyway. Also I agree that martial buffs would be nice 😂
Basically, bring back fourth edition's martials, which were actually exciting to play.
The thing is, the new crit rules also nerf martials. Especially unarmed monks and Rogues, who need buffs.
@@MelissiaBlackheart Didn't realize 4e had anything like that. Started in 5e. Yeah, I'm D&D noob. :P
@@RoamingJackal They do! 4th edition Fighters have a feature, gained at level one, where all of their attacks mark any enemies they target with the attack-- regardless of if they hit-- until the end of the fighter's next turn. Marked enemies have a -2 penalty to attacks that don't include the fighter, and the fighter can make an equivalent of an opportunity attack if they don't include the fighter as a target. That alone would make fighters massively more interesting and fulfil the role of party tank better than any class in 5th currently does.
My biggest complaint about One D&D is how they claim it is not a new edition while simultaneously admitting it's a new edition by saying it'll be backwards compatible with 5e. I just want WotC to be honest and upfront that it will be more than revised and updated rulebooks. Any DM worth their dice will make rulings and toss out rules that don't work for their table, so anything else not liked about it is easily remedied.
I changed over to Pathfinder myself and didn't bother after 3.5.
But if all of your 5e material is usable with all the revised rules, then that's not a new edition. I think they're pretty clear in their goals and intent. They don't want continually iterating editions. They want to refine and develop what they've already got.
You can call it 6e. You can call it 5.5. They call it One D&D. That's all semantics.
My books will all work with future books. Hard to feel pressed about that.
@@Ambiguousakira Those are wise words. I was thinking of something similar.
WotC be honest about their products? Never!
And the best part is it’s about as far from “compatible” with 5e as it could get away with. If people want to play with this new stuff and rules, that’s fine! Let them! But please draw a line between all the new, overly powerful content and the old stuff so those of us who want to play the old version don’t have to wade through the masses who are playing “5e” to find the handful who want to play classic, actual 5e and not this backwards compatible One D&D stuff.
0:50
Honestly I think that's actually the problem with One DnD. You can't really have just one DnD for everyone because no single edition is for everyone, nor should there be. It'd be like saying 1-4e shouldn't exist and that everyone who likes them should just play 5e instead. It's more like they are still very gunshy after 4e's reception and want to play it safe.
Not saying that One DnD won't or can't be good, but I feel like this crowdpleasing approach is going to bite them in the ass later on. Everything being backwards compatible means that we won't see any radical changes to underlying mechanics or the intended gameplay loop, which is really a shame. In my opinion, One DnD should just be its own thing, instead of trying to be the only DnD, by which they really mean 5.5e.
Onward to Pathfinder.
I mean, the crowdpleasing approach made 5e what it is today, by making the game much simpler for a new audience. It is logical that they would continue such an approach.
@@subprogram32 DnD 5e isn't really simpler for a new audience. It's just popularized by a social media campaign that is more or less wildly successful.
@@MelissiaBlackheart I dunno, It was simpler for me when I played it as a brand new player like a decade ago. There was a learning curve like anything else, but the basic systems were very simple to understand.
@@als3022 I mean there are more TTRPGs than DnD and PF, and it's not like you're beholden to only play one system.
My main worry is the virtual table top game they gonna nickel and dime you for.
I think the concern with paying is less about the core books and more of a concern of having microtransactions in the VTT. Like if you buy a module, and you then have to pay a premium to use any virtual minis that come with that module outside of it.
I want the half races and subraces back. I want the 5E crit rules and ditch the auto success rules. Those are my biggest concerns, but if they don't change it I'll Rule Zero it.
You like the new crit rules? Can you explain why?
Rule zero'ing it is fine if you can find a group that agrees, but if you can't, you are pretty much stuck with anything that ends up as new RAW.
Just 'base delta zero' the whole thing.
@@tadferd4340 well no. RAW for 5th edition is still Raw for 5th edition. Raw for 6th edition is different
Technically half races are in. You can just mix whatever two, though the system is basically just "look like 1 thing, stats from another thing" at this point. And there are still subraces. Halfling and Dwarf got condensed, but honestly I'm not gonna miss the stuff that got shuffled out, personally. And this is the first sample of the prospective rules, so I'm sure if an option has enough support it'll be included in the final product.
@@tadferd4340 New crit rules are that monsters can't crit, so no more 12d6 greatsword crits from fire giants. Only players can crit. Also spells and abilities can't crit, which applies to like less than a dozen spells anyway and they don't need to crit so who cares.
Furthermore, crits no longer double bonus dice from stuff like Sneak Attack and Smite. Which is a houserule I've seen people using already, and it wasn't necessary for the huge damage bonus features to give a doublehuge damage bonus, imo.
So basically crits are exactly the same, but things that already did way more damage to start can no longer explode into absurdity by rolling 20.
They also made it so a 20 or 1 automatically succeed or fail (respectively) for skill checks and saving throws, which is a thing I think every player I've spoken to was using already or liked the idea of, so yeah. Only time I ever see "Um, actually... You can't critically succeed on a skill check" is when someone seems compelled to be a buzzkill during story time.
If it’s “backwards compatible” there will likely be so few changes it’s not worth checking out. Feels like when the same company doesn’t test mtg cards then has to ban 3 every set that comes out.
I don’t disagree with the satire here, but there are concerning points with One D&D. Namely, the consolidation of resources for online play Suggests third-party developers and homebrew are to be discouraged/difficult to implement on their VTT system. Digitizing the game also adversely affects local gaming store’s businesses.
Rules-wise, yes the alpha testing and community feedback is fantastic. But I fear the compromising of rules could eventually be designed to entice new players while potentially changing so much that veteran players have to resort to over-homebrew.
Tbh I'm just worried because so far I've only played using Beyond.
They say it's all backwards compatible but you literally can't buy Tome of Foes or Volo's Guide anymore on there. This seems cool but there's also a chance they do more stuff like that
if you already owned them, you can still access them. They just stopped new purchases, because they're basically obsolete now.
Also, what's that got to do with being backwards compatible? You will still be able to run OneD&D with MToF/VGtM content, if you own them.
I'm pretty sure the reason they discontinued those books is because they released Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse. And to my understanding, that's a new sourcebook with all of the Races and Creatures in both books.
It also seems to feature some of the races from the newer sourcebooks such as the Harengon (Or rabbitfolk) and the Fairy from Wild Beyond the Witchlight. Same for the Grung race, which had no sourcebook of its own prior to MotM was originally released to support charity.
Call me old school, but I like stat modifiers being tied to what fantasy creature you decide to play.
"Creative" is playing a Half-Orc wizard even though it's not optimized.
This this this. Tbh itll all just be humans with a skin color change now
I get that, but at the same time it stereotypes. All dwarves are tough, all elves are nimble, all tieflings are charismatic, etc. Putting stat modifiers in your upbringing and occupation is one of my favorite changes in the UA.
You can still do the same stuff. Half-orc soldier wizard will run similarly.
And it's not like they're making the races all the same. Your resistance changes depending on tiefling subrace. Dwarves can activate tremorsense. There's plenty of non stat stuff you can do with races.
No, you are not creative for playing a wizard with 13 intelligence, you are a detriment to your party.
Ok but lets say you have a tiefling, but youve learned blacksmithing your whole life, why wouldnt you be stronger than another tiefling thats just beend studying academics?
I mean... you could have done that before and still could. If you want to give yourself -2 Int when playing a wizard well then hey... I'm not your party member.
To all saying "Just send them your feedback", as a 3.5 veteran, I just have to say "Oh sweet summer child...".
Yeah it's a bit like fans going "Marvel! Bring back Daredevil!" and wanting them to just continue on from what they did before, and Marvel is like "Ok here's more Daredevil" and doing a complete reboot...
3.5 still best version out there IMO
You think that's bad? They threw out all the feedback we sent them during the 5e beta testing and decided to just do their own thing to create the hot, broken mess that is 5th.
5th is NOT a hot broken mess! They made it so much easier to play for DMs and players alike and fixed some really wretched stuff from 4th! Maybe they threw out the feedback, but do NOT take it out on 5th! It’s great you hobgoblin looking LICH!!!
@@heatherramirez6141 Wow, you mad bruh? Calm down.
The name is definitely odd sounding. I just can't see myself saying "Oh we play One D&D". Just sounds weird. My group will probably call it D&D 6th edition or just "D&D".
It reminds me of One Chicago way too much 😂
I feel like one d&d has some good things and some bad things
Some changes are good
Some are bad
One DND is most certanly going to be one of the DND editions
@@stadnikds LOL 😂
Now pay 60 bucks for DnD 5e again but with 10 homebrew rules.
@@naproupi Then don't pay for it
The good news is that we can help shape a large majority of the future of D&D
Although, the VTTRPG is honestly worrying, as it might hurt what D&D is
Must have missed it, I haven't seen anywhere, anybody, acting anything even close to this. The major complaint I've seen is about the move in the direction of subscription and walled garden services. And that is one concern I share.
DnD community be like:
Wizards: "Here's new rules, tell us how you feel about them"
DnD Community: "This is how we feel about it"
Also DnD Community: "Why are you guys complaining just don't use the rules stop talking about the things you don't like"
I mean, when I watch 30 seconds of a trailer then go on a 15 minute rant im not exactly taken all that seriously-
There's having a conversation and then there's screeching about your knee jerk reaction, people tend not to like the latter unless they feel the same
@@zashgekido5616 People are reacting to the pages of game changing content posted, and the fact that wizards are trying to make people pay money for content they already own on yet another platform.
Maybe if you categorize any critique as "schreeching knee jerk reactions", you aren't as civil or reasonable as you think.
@@glonx639 Yes, I call death threats over a game screeching knee jerk reactions you mouthbreather.
You arent in the wrong for having an opinion of wrong dnd, you're in the wrong for the sheer amount of vitriol given to what is essentially the beginning of a playtest
@@glonx639 The intolerance of tolerance, so many people seem to forget this effect.
@@glonx639 The way I read his response was purely about "the trailer" which would mean it was about the movie and not the playtest. If my guess is right then his answer is understandable, if off topic.
Paying for products is nothing new, we've been over this-
Rogue: Shut up
Me, the pirate rogue: *closing the lid of my treasure chest to keep my free products safe* You guys pay?
one of the issues i have is that they trully want to change the dnd lore to be less discriminatory even when it doesn't make sense, like tieflings are wildly accepted and yuan-tis can be good and blablabla, nothing build into their biology to be trully different, just fluff and more fluff so that everyone gets accepted if they're the EXACT same inside with no differences, meaning it trully shatters the official world-building and future campaigns to come
but then again, homebrew is there for us
Seems like it wants to completely get rid of conflit or something.
| but then again, homebrew is there for us
Exactly! In my world, tieflings are not only hated to the point of actual bogey-🌲, they're also grossly fetishized (as a nod to JoCat's Crap Guide to Races rap)
@@als3022 yeah they want no differences, no inter-species conflicts, no slavery from emdritch entities, no nothing, they even want to tone down litteral hell and the abyss ffs it's stupid as f
they can't get in their minds that north american culture should in no way shape or form shape the psychology/world building and lore of a whole new world, it's almost like they want to catter to people that thinks that the orc race is racist
You know something I’ve realised: their “non-discriminatory” actions are actually racists because they’re making every race basically the same it’s like with that Woman King movie where the makers tried to erase the fact that the tribe it’s based on we’re actual slavers and refused to stop even when there were stronger factions from over seas killing them as they attempted to acquire slaves.
It just goes to show how far up their own butts the woke parts of these companies have their heads
tbf most of that stuff gets ignored anyway.
I've played Curse of Strahd several times as a tiefling, despite the module going 'yeah these people are super racist against non-human looking races' the dms never added that because it just wasn't fun for them, the group or me.
If we wanted racism then we'd add it ourselves but more often than not it was ignored
Honestly I don't know why, but the name One D&D upsets me. Because as someone who started playing D&D 5th edition and is now going on 8 years of playing, I was looking forward to moving on and getting to play other 5.5 edition or 6th edition. I also I know it might be a little stupid but being able to say I started in 5th edition to new players sounded nice to me. In my personal D&D life and in the greater D&D community as a whole I've looked up to the "veterans" of D&D. I saw the editions like a badge of honor and which now I feel like Ill never get that.
I feel like some people will just ignore the title and call it 6th edition
@@Jade_Dragon I'll call it 5.5. Because in its current iteration that's all it is.
Yea I do NOT like that they break the tradition on this, its so simple, but its so importaint, like crits
My agitation with One D&D (Gods, that honestly is kinda a stupid name but I respect what they’re attempting) comes from how very “cash-grabby” the announcement trailer made it seem. I despise D&D Beyond and that won’t change anytime soon. It annoys me whenever I go onto the site and I get smacked by a paywall just to check a subclass or spell.
I was thinking about how to phrase my problem with OneD&D, and then you went and did it perfectly. (My other problem is that I don't want to give my players even *more* reasons to play with their phones, but that's honestly a secondary concern to the cash grab issue.)
Piracy :)
@@VictorRing that too. I get the appeal of online D&D and using phones, but there is something to say for old school sitting at a table with your friends and gaming it up with paper character sheets. It hits different.
@@ver87onaDnD Beyond is so awful. Especially compared to 4th edition's character builder app now that the community's compiled everything in to it.
I mean, that’s how it works; you want access to the materials, you gotta buy the product.
Wotc: changes Tiefling lore so they are loved instead of mistrusted
Me: but part of the fun of playing a Tiefling is that they have to constantly struggle against systemic hatred to prove they aren't the monsters people expect them to be
Cause people are just going to be all happy to see someone who has demonic blood in them. That makes perfect sense. 100% Yeah.......
It's fun for some, but not for everyone. That sort of thing should be opt in instead of opt out imo. Also, why do people keep thinking of a character struggling to overcome discrimination as a personal journey instead of a societal problem?
@@aeonreign6456 Right, right. I've also noticed that people who like to run this sort of narrative, where a race is discriminated against and has to prove their worth, will rarely if ever use a core race. I really do wanna ask people who like to, or force this plot onto, non-core or niche races for the sake of realism or whatever why they can't pull off the same story with human characters. I think that would highlight how fucked up discrimination against a fantasy race actually is.
Look, I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't run a game where a certain fantasy race is discriminated against because you want to explore how a character navigates that. I'm just saying that if you do take it seriously and don't use discrimination as window dressing or a narrative tax for playing an uncommon race.
@@starmantheta2028 I played it with a half-orc. With a fully phb half-orc OOTA palladin.
Here's my story. Gregor's mother was raped by some barbaric orc. After she had born a baby and it grew a bit, she scared of its looks (Gregor has olive skin, curly red hair, spiky teeth with clearly seen fangs, pointy ears and golden eyes. + 3 cha intimidation proficient) and immediately tossed it out at the temple of Lathander and Chaundria. Gregor was adopted by the main priest of the temple, and raised by priests and palladins. He wasn't much into book studies, so he doesn't know anything more than basic literacy, numbers and religion (no languages other than common) , but very strong physically and eager to help. His father's palladin friends noticed and started training him. To their amazement, he got really well at fighting, and actually enjoyed it very much as well. He also helped out a lot at the hospital and learned healing. He gave his oath and also found out that when he puts on his heavy armour, his helmet , his sacred symbol (a sun of Lathander brass medallion) and his temple cloak - people would suddenly stop bullying him as they won't notice what race is under the helmet. He would be looked upon as a holy palladin he is instead. He shines his armour carefully to maintain the look and enjoy being liked, not hated. Recently, a high-ranked palladin visited his father and questioned him if a half-orc was worthy of becoming a palladin. So he headed out for adventure to prove it.
I would smite beasts down with my GS, heal and save people and tell them like "now you understand half-orcs don't have to be mean and evil".
In this case there's not a community problem - there's a conflict between people and orcs and no half-orc community - it's just bullying about appearance and lineage. It's not even much racism in first hand - I would dare say half-germans would be treated no better after the WWII. And with a specific feature like the very same fangs... I have them, I had been called a vampire for several years. Or red hair - it means bad luck, and Gregor with an empty bucket is equal to three black cats at this matter in the minds of uneducated medieval people.
The biggest problem to m was the fact that it's "backwards compatible" if it is then why even make One D&D? Backwards compatible for videogames makes sense but for tabletops it doesn't.
I'm only annoyed by the fact that I just spent the whole year getting into DnD and suddenly there's a new version?!
(Oh, and the removal of the iconic races Half-Elf and Half-Orc and replacing them with a cheap "any mix can happen, just reskin a certain race, lol")
Yeah I'm upset because I never got to play 5e and now theirs a new edition out already
Nothing forces you to switch, you can stick to whatever you are playing. I still find that 3.5 is the best version of D&D and I would have stick to it if Pathfinder didn't exist (it's an upgraded version of 3.5). And then I tried Pathfinder 2, didn't like it, so I stick with 1st edition.
Don't be afraid to try different games to find out what you like more
To be fair, I prefer the idea of versions over having one main line. The way you play will change, and so will the storytelling
I read through First Edition and Advanced, and it feels more cozy than 5e.
What I'm mad about is I can tell Hasbro is moving to lock D&D down and will quietly not have 1D&D be under creative commons (they already did that with the Artificer class)
then when ppl realise that the response will be
"we know you are upset by this news but for a small fee you can get a limited personal or commercial license to publish 3rd party work on DMs Guild"
The artificer class is still available on wikis and stuff, so I'm not sure what the actual impact on the players would be. They can't do anything if you aren't trying to make money off their text.
That only affects VTT games using pre-made campaigns. Playing with pen and paper and dice is cheap and bypasses all the restrictions, especially if you're willing to carry a bit of rum
Ok but legitimately sad there aren’t any half or sub races
0:57 "Hoooonestly, that isn't a bad name."
Ah yes. And the Xbox 1 coming after the Xbox 360 is a wonderful choice in naming. I mean, I don't particularly hate anything else with One D&D, but they could have picked literally *anything* else for the name. D&D United. D&D Deluxe. D&D Sixth Edition (Because are we really going to assume they AREN'T going to change the rules later on down the line?). Ultimate D&D. Literally any of those would be better than One D&D because One D&D implies there is going to be a Two D&D.
After D&D One will be D&D X.
To be fair, the xbone had the best name of all of microsoft's products in the history of their company. It's quite literally the best they can do, it would seem.
Getting rid of suggested racial ability score increases was distinctly them NOT listening to the D&D community, as the removal of suggested racial ASIs has been extremely controversial. It's much better and easier for players if they say "here's the suggested ASI, but you can change it if you want," instead of saying "anybody can have anything, and if you want preset ASIs, you have to make them up yourself."
I’m happy about a few of the rules, but I think that the crit rule and new magic spell division unbalanced quite a few builds. For one, Assassin Rogues are now worthless as they no longer get double damage from their sneak attacks, making the instant crit on an ambush worthless. While I am not as upset about this next gripe, since in my opinion, Paladin is an S-tier class, I am somewhat upset that Paladins don’t get double dice smites on crits. It was one of the most epic moments in my entire time playing D&D when our party’s Oath of Treachery Paladin scored a crit smite against the vampire lord Strahd Von Zarovich, dealing 88 radiant damage at level 12 and shattering the Heart of Sorrow in a single attack. I am, however, upset about the new division of spells. A part of what made wizards so powerful was their access to an innumerable amount of spells, but now a ton of classes have access to the exact same spell list. However, while the nerfed Wizards, they also buffed them to an unreasonable degree. Now Wizards have access to Armor of Agathys without having to take any levels in Warlock. This makes Abjuration Wizards so broken that I don’t even know what to do anymore.
Assassin Rogues were useless before hitting the new crit rules since they changed surprise to just a part of the Incapacitated condition. And even then it's just... disadvantage on initiative. Then you hit the new crit rules only to realize a rogue at _best_ now only gets 1 more d6 to damage on crits (Unless you play a race that gives longbow or heavy crossbow proficiency.)
@@dracokaleb1239 IKR? I mean, what’s the point of going to all that effort to get sneak attack if you don’t even get the chance to do crazy doubled damage on a crit? I’m fine that spells can’t crit because spellcasters needed to be nerfed in comparison to martial classes, but they have also ruined a lot of fun crit builds.
I'm hoping it doesn't actually change what classes get what spells. It does sound pretty cool if the division is instead just something for other effects to mechanically interact with (say, a druids' conclave has some sort of effect that interferes with arcane spells, or divine spells are harder to save against in a temple)
@@sethb3090 Yeah, I’m pretty sure the spell list is for racial features or feats, not classes.
I don't get this deep fear of Rogue sneak attack, which has been going on since it was Backstab. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics can level mountains, lock enemies in alternate dimensions, and Stop Time itself, aside from the actual damage they wield. Hell, a low-level Div Wizard is literally changing die rolls for allies and enemies.
But yeah, that extra 3d6 damage is gonna really screw everyone over. nevermind that any mainline caster is going to absolutely pants them on damage per round as they move up. that ONE attack a round at level 20 is TOO much.
They have the audacity to listen to us How dare u
I wish they had listened to us during the 5th edition beta test.
I wish they would but just like every company they don't.
More like they have the audacity to listen to people who think Orcs and Drow are in any way comparable to real life minority groups.
the only thing not good with one dnd is they are trying to limit where, *From what I head*, not entirely sure if true, but they are trying to limit where you can play to be just in person or their online version of a vtt which they are making. so they would be going after stuff like Talespire, roll20, and fantasy grounds if it is true
Windows 10 was supposed to be the final version, and from then on, it would just be Windows. Which is why there's definitely not a Windows 11 available right now.
Yeah... we're going to see a 6th edition, and eventually a 7th.
Honestly not a fan of removing racial ability score bonuses. Those always felt like fun boosts to work with or around to add some extra flavor to your character, give them some small advantage based on who and what they are. 5th edition didn't even have penalties anymore like past editions, so it's not like you were loosing anything, you were just getting a small buff in one or two things in particular.
Half-race thing seems a bit weird too. Feels like it could be better then just "Play as either an elf or a human, and just declare yourself a half elf", but idk. 🤷♂
Yeah, IMO the racial ability score modifiers reflected the fact that some races tend to have genetic advantages in certain areas. A smart orc that becomes a wizard has their smartness reflected by the 15 they put in intelligence. The fact they're an orc just means that, even if they never hit the gym, they'll still have 10 strength while their humie classmates only have 8. Some might call it a waste, but if you want to minmax that hard just don't play an orc. Otherwise, enjoy the character flavor.
Now the one good counterargument I've heard is that it is actually tough to start out with only a +2 to your primary stat, and I understand that, so my compromise in my games is to say that you have a +1 to the two stats boosted by racial traits, and can put an additional +1 in whatever stat you want (Races that get a +1 to 3 stats must put a +1 in 2/3 of them, and can put the remaining +1 into any stat, including one of the first two stats. Mountain Dwarves are the only race I know of that gets a +2 to 2 stats and I'll figure out what to do for them when I get a player wanting to run one)
Orcs get powerful build, an orc with 11 str can lift more than a human with 20. Orcs also get relentless endurance, making them tougher than a human with the same constitution.
The physical ability of orcs to be stronger and tougher than humans is better represented by giving them cool features than boring ability score modifiers.
@@Mastikator why not both?
@@TamTroll Because people don't want to be punished for not playing the same class for the same race every time.
@@Mastikator ?????????? you're not being punished tho???????????
There are no minuses to racial ability scores anymore! Your character is not LOOSING anything! the bonuses are nothing but a 100% BONUS!
"listen to player feedback"
Sure they will...
(Players waiting for high level game support since the beginning of 5th edition)
*john travolta looking around gif*
My favorite case of "we listened to your feedback" has got to be Vermintide 2. They took the ONE thing that the entire community agreed on was the best part and decided to change it. During testing, they had nearly 100% "feedback" saying "please don't do this. Leave it how it was. This is terrible."
The Big Brains did it anyway, and wouldn't you know it, killed the player base, got "overwhelmingly negative" on steam, and they spent the next several months trying to "fix" it.
When I see/hear the words "we hear your feedback" I just automatically assume they mean "we collected the data but have 0 plans to use/read it because we've already put the hours into what we have."
People complained about nat 20 resulting in inspiration. They changed it in the following UA. They do listen. These are not final rules, they are experimenting to see what people like and don't like.
You can (and should) give them feedback about what you don't like, but getting upset about the UA just dumb.
I do not like the less variety in the spellcasters/ing.
Although, I wouldn't mind it for the warlock. I mean, casting a spell that can only be cast at first level, but using a fourth level spell slot, and being able to only pick one spell for each level above sixth? Yeah no.
But, hopefully, there is enough outcry about the crits being nerfed to get that fixed.
Wotc: let's buff dragonborn. *releases fizban's.
Me: Yay finally they have a good breath weapon!
Wotc: let's go back to how it was.
Me: Dragonborn lives matter!
I don’t think they’ll remove the Fizban’s version of the Dragonborn, but I do think it would be better to buff the one in the play test pdf
So true
Couldn't agree more, we dragonborn players needed that buff
The thing that bugs me is that this may be a continuing trend of stagnation. They've already released at least one book I know of that was just a re-release of older material (from 2 whole books) with minor tweaks. If they're going to do compilation books, compile the stuff from the setting books. One for magic items, one for monsters, one for character options.
It also doesn't help that the VTT is 3D graphics, which makes it harder to homebrew for it (probably to push microtransactions like EA).
Your last point is one of my bigger gripes.
As a compilation of stats it was fair, although I don’t like how aggressively they’re pruning down monster/NPC spellcasting; that said, I do wish they didn’t seem to be junking all the lore from Volo’s and Mordenkainen’s
Compilation books are terrible but hard to say its stagnation when there are many books being released which are not compilations. The majority of the recent releases have been new settings and optional rules. The VTT could be arse, but its optional and will have little impact.
@@Wertbag99 My problem is that instead of building on the rules, they're rewriting them. Instead of building on existing Lore, they are rewriting it and starting new branches they likely won't flesh out any better.
@@tjoris9 that's the trend, though. Lore gets written, then tossed out whenever a new edition came out.
To be fair, it is pretty stupid that they got rid of half races like the half orcs and half elves. And the rules they made for mixed blooded races feels really lazy and not well thought out. It honestly feels like rules that better suit races like Tieflings, Aasimar, or the Dhampir. The lineage races.
I also feel like the Dragonborn got the short end of the stick again but since it's backwards compatible with 5e, we can still apply Fizban.
If I wanted a low rules game I would play something else
Honestly the only thing I am concerned about is how VTT will be working from now on.
It's kinda annoying that we have only half-orcs and half-elves
@@georgeuferov1497 Yup! That's why I use 3rd party and previous edition stuff for half races
Autoincorrect Dragonborn?
That VTT with D&D Beyond Integration has me pretty worried for the long term. But I am very excited for the rules.
This D&D One is reminding me of second edition 2.5.
The introduction of Skills and Powers. Combat and Tactics. And spells and magic books.
It was a point system that allowed you to build your characters from the complete ground up.
Race, class.
Attributes were broken into two fragments.
Strength- stamina/muscle
Dex- aim/balance
Wis- intuition/willpower
And so on.
You even got this Nifty choice table called advantages and disadvantages.
They were not just flavor. They actually affected your character for better or worse
Players could take up to, 2 hour just to make a character.
Then once the game started I would destroy their characters within 30 minutes.
Ahh the good ol days...
The races not having stat modifiers does seem to me a bit like making all the races a bit more samy, same thing with deleting the half-races. An orc and goliath are known for being strong tough creatures, while an elf is know for it's dexterity and intelligence. It's a bit of a shame that they plan to remove it and the buff in stats they give never really stopped people from doing build or having diversity in characters, that's what the stats you assign are for :/
I was looking for a comment like this. Removing all the racial ability scores makes everyone a gray box and it's just boring. It doesn't limit anyone's creativity since Tasha's already introduced Custom Lineage if you want to swap the scores up. But to remove them completely just strips a lot of uniqueness from each race.
It also doesn't make sense to me
It's like saying a gorilla loses its strength because it lived with humans one time.
That is a valid point. Stats were what defined a lot of the races, especially humans with the whole idea of adaptibility by giving them a +1 to everything
But I actually like the fact that stats are from backgrounds now. Now I don't have to feel like I am giving myself disadvantage towards my ranger characters because I didn't choose a wood-elf. Now I can be a Dragonborne and still have the ability to get good Dex stats off the bat
I like to play min max in Video Games and RP in PnP... getting not the most favo stats at the start of the Campaign is part of the fun
Do me a favor and look up the real history of eugenics and you can see why that makes folks extremely uncomfortable
I'm just woried about the play kit things digital content and like microtransactions being still full priced, I expect to pay no duh just, don't want E books to be the same price as normal books, unless we can get beyond codes from physical books. I'm excited for one but at the same time eh, Pathfinder truly tho has the superior character creation stat boost from race and background and then an extra few because you are a PC
They added +10$ to price for a book and now you get both physical and DnD beyond version. I think Dragonlance will be first time that bundle is aveilable.
Both are putting contemporary politics in their game, stick with OSR.
@@Richforce1 All games put their politics in to their game, that's the nature of writing anything.
I just hope that the races are still going to have modifiers when creating a character but you can choose to change them. I hope it isn't forced to make us choose which abilities we want.
Nope. Ability modifiers are now added by the background you choose...which means you'll see the same 4 backgrounds for every character
@@Dietsteve incorrect, backgrounds are being desined in a way to be ENTIRELY customizable. Anything you can think of could be a background, biggest concern is the lv1 feat variety.
Honestly none of that sounds good to me...
@@frost68nskate why tho
To be fair. The ones who asked for some of the changes. Are not the same people who now are complaining about it. At least not for the most parts. 😅
Literally everything I hear about 1D&D just make me want to go back to playing pathfinder. Or try to learn pathfinder 2e.
Yes, come back to the fold.
Eh, I don't really see the point of going back to pf1e. It's just dnd 3.5.5. at least 2e makes some meaningful changes.
@@MelissiaBlackheart I wouldn't really know, I started with pf 1e, then had a dm show me 5e and I got bored sooooo fast with it. So, if one dnd is going to be worse than 5e, more people going back to pathfinder means I'll get more people to play with.
@@nekrosprime8415 One DnD isn't gonna be worse than 5e. It's just gonna be different. My problem is that it's not gonna be different *enough.* It's not gonna fix what I see as wrong with the edition.
@@MelissiaBlackheart similar system, a few differences. I mainly would do it be the difference in lore, and… I think more customization.
The only major issue is preying on the vulnerable with micro transactions. And trying to create more of a monopoly. Little things like that.
Well Hasbro already owns Monopoly
@@peleg6748 They know how it's played.
Some people definitely overreact. No question about it. But it's also important to voice our criticism.
Taking to the forums and the questionnaire and giving honest feedback is super important here.
I am honestly not a fan of how they handle the races in this. It feels like everything becomes more of an "Einheitsbrei" is what I would use in German ^^; äh everything becomes more of the same. Stuff loses it's uniqueness. And I get some "?" above my head when people suddenly want to tell me that goliaths and fairies have the same strength. It does not break the game for me! I can accept it. I just find it illogical. And weren't there already rules for unique/extra/special lineages? This seems unnecessary. (And some people touting their horns that this helps with a racism problem that game is supposed to have doesn't help this either)
Goliaths & fairies have always had the same *maximum* strength. Removing fixed stat bonuses just means that their *starting* strength can also be the same.
And if you think that stat mods are what makes races "unique", then 5e wood elves are identical to ("legacy") aarakocra...
@@ProperDave
Thanks for the food for thought.
I may have sounded too harsh in my first comment ^^;
You have a point. They could reach the same maximum. (It could even get reversed depending on how you skill them and what class you have XP )
To me the starting stat mod represents the average abilities of the average member of their race/species. So in contrast to some high levelled individuals, I expect the average goliath to be stronger than the average fairy. Similar to how people would expect the average elephant to be stronger than the average raven but the raven to be faster than the elephant thanks to flying.
Stat mods are not what makes races/species unique to me. Not alone at least. It's looks, lore, culture, racial abilities, stat mods and more. So it is just one part of many.
I just don't see the "big" advantage to FULLY ERASE this completely understandable, long running and in LOTS of other games used rule from D&D.
Buuuuuuut...
The two main arguments are that this helps to reduce racism, which is silly, and that it supports player freedom for character creation.
I get the character creation argument. And it is actually something worth discussing:
Tasha's already had a ruling that roughly said "If it doesn't fit the character that you have in mind, then simply change it.". This is highly interesting. It also supports this rule change in One DnD. I mean, if there is already a rule that basically says "Do what you want with this." then pretending to have "set-in-stone" rules for it is useless. What I would actually like to see would be that it is changed to something like a recommendation or a suggestion. Like, put in a sentence comparable to "Dwarfs are known for their sturdy bodies and resistance to sickness and injuries. This is represented by the average (non-player) Dwarf having an ability score increase of +2 to their constitution." Don't simply say "Dwarfs get +2 Constitution". Say something along the lines of "You can take what fits your character best but just so you know this is how we will represent the majority of the dwarfs in our world. You are free to think about if this fits your character idea."
This would be the optimal version in my opinion. It gives this complete player freedom from the start and it preserves existing lore and understanding of the races/species. Like back to the starting example, Players would get told "Most Goliaths are strong; think about putting something into strength." But maybe your Goliath is not as strong but much more nimble or wiser than his fellow peers.
Not sure what you think of this idea but this is how I would handle this ^^; What do you think?
...
(Lastly I want to play devil's advocate. Forgive me for that ^^;
If one takes the argument of player freedom during character creation to the extreme, we would also discuss other racial traits. Why can humans now choose between small or medium size while dwarfs are stuck at medium? [That's even a somewhat serious question.] Why can some races fly but a Tiefling can't. And so on and so on.
It boils down to players existing that go like: "This blocks my creative freedom! I want to play my tiny, flying Orc with Charisma +2, hellish resistance and acid breath weapon! Why can't I create that character?!"
There is a limit to player freedom. At least in my opinion. Some people have proven that crazy but super cool and balanced homebrew exists. So I could be wrong here. But at least for newbies, some limits seem good.)
@@quanion2464 average members of a race are reflected in NPC stat blocks. Adventurers are extraordinary, by definition.
And if someone wants to mix & match racial abilities like that... they'd be better off playing a different game than D&D
@@ProperDave no the rule is just dumb and illogical
the npc argument is invalid when they only give a single one and it meant for humans mostly cause Wotc lazy and expect dms to fix there broken system
Explain to me how a fairy is ment to be as strong at the start as say a race that can lift a bolder size of a house one handed o and that the weakest defected runt
genetics are a thing my guy us humans do selective breeding with animals for a reason cause certain traits and things are different and the new race rules make it all
everyone is the same
let me quote a great movie
"I'll make everyone special and once everyone is special no one swill be" that is the new race rules
The change to the races is actually a bad thing though. Its not creative to be bland. You already could be an Orc wizard, or a Goliath wizard. You already could have a Minotaur Rogue. You already could have a gnome fighter. Sure, they're not 100% optimized builds, but who cares about that? Munchkins. And pretty much ONLY munchkins. People who NEEEEEEED at least 2 stats to be 18, and have to have all the best skills, feats, abilities and most generous interpretations of every single rule in the game or they pout and throw a fit.
Why should we redesign all of DnD to cater to those jerks? Most of us are just fine rolling average stats. Most of us have played a game where at least one character had bad luck and had a 15 as their highest stat to start with. The game was still perfectly playable.
If any race can have any stat modifiers, then you basically homogenize all races in the game. Your Minotaur wizard isn't impressing anybody by achieving something not typical for a Minotaur. Your Minotaur wizard is completely mundane. Absolutely average. Because Minotaurs have exactly the same potential as an elf or gnome when it comes to intelligence. And for that matter, your minotaur would lose an arm wrestling competition against a halfling because *obviously* your Minotaur is frail, lanky and short. As is typical of any Minotaur who doesn't work out extensively.
Every race becomes identical to one another in all but surface level appearance. Differing from one another only in the most superficial and vain ways possible. You end up with a boring bland world where nothing and nobody is, or can be unique.
Exactly
Some people really think creative and good roleplay is making a gimped character, and i have no idea where this opinion comes from.
or maybe you just want to play a odd race/class combo and dont want to be the weakest at the table and not contribute, or maybe you want to play a race/class combo that makes sense to you but the racial stats would absolutely gut?
Theres no inherent RP benefit to playing a purposefully weak character.
Maybe the minotaur wizards feats Are so impressive BECAUSE he is actually as good a wizard as the humans, and not just an utter failure at spell casting?
It's not as open as the Tasha's custom lineage though. Your stats are tied to your background. You can play a wizard with the laborer background and have your points in strength and con and just have it that some not-Gandalf showed up and handed you a spellbook with pictures one day.
Heck, you can make a non-optimized high elf wizard that way.
Agreed. I actually like playing as combos that generally aren't seen, just to see how it turns out.
The lesson here, is that folks wanna be mad but they wanna have a reason for it.
How like I pretend to hate olive garden but love olive garden's food.
Thats because it used to be garbage but they really improved over the past 5 yrs
Like their seasonal endless pasta bowls. I've made a challenge out of it 😆
@@insanemang9983
Mmmm pasta....
@@insanemang9983 You had to make me hungry, didn't you. You couldn't just mind your own business.
.......paaaaastaaaaa alfreeeedo.........
the lesson here is that twitter is nowhere near being reliable source of people points, usually loud extreme is there.
sure i dislike 90% of the changes of one dnd, but so i did with 5e. ill just stick to other systems and let people who enjoy those have fun
Love the skit lol, although I am worried about them micro transacting alot of things and basically making creators struggle to create things with off shoots being everything is going to online
...It's not all going online. It'll be books and ALSO available online. D&D Beyond is just being upgraded to official repository. And they're working on a VTT to exist along other VTTs.
@@vincentwinqvist4023 sorry I'm aware, I meant to convey that I'm worried that they will eventually make everything online and hard micro transacting thank you for the correction 😊
I was just as confused at the beginning as the yellow shirt character till I remembered it's a skit.
I'm not bothered by the rules in general. The VTT, however, worries me. Used well, it could be good. But I think it's likely to be overused and cause more harm than good.
i still think removing racial buffs/debuffs is dumb
No matter how much good stuff they put in, I will ALWAYS be pissed about that name.
What's wrong with 5.5e?
I mean, 5e was called "D&D Next" the whole time they were releasing player play test material for it. This is probably also just a working name for the playtest.
@@brandonhansen7209 I did not know that, thank you. Lets hope you are right.
I did not know about it until now
'No need to shout. No need to Yell. No need to have a riot"
-Michael Rosen
If anything gets added to one D&D can, we please for the love of God make it to where cats have dark vision?
I'm down
Yes
And give snakes immunity to the prone condition?
One thing that i both like and do not like is the backgrounds and race changes.
I like the idea of backgrounds having stats and starting feat, but i don't like the idea of races having no starting stats.
Its like saying a beaver and a bear have the same str stat if they smack a tree everyday.
My suggestion is have either a (+1, +1) stat on either a background or race, then have another (+1) on the other. Makes more sense to me at least
Unfortunately the twitter mob would kill them if they attempted to give Race stats again.
Some feats give ASIs anyway, so maybe making the backgrounds have a +2 or a feat would work better?
@@tylerian4648 that can work yes, it's just an untested suggestion for now, but it should be doable
We know why we came back to this video.
I honestly don't like the name, I get it what they want to do but it's inconsistent and I don't like inconsistency
Main thing I change all together is the spells perday for spellcasters. I much rather use a mana point system, you pick your spellcaster class and roll a d100 to see where you stand on your mp development. The higher the number you roll the greater your mana will increase, except for clerics, warlocks and paladins, you roll the d100 to see what patron you worship/sell your soul to and how powerful that being is.
Had session yesterday.
Player insisted that because one dnd adds crit successes to all rolls, he can jump to the moon on his nat 20 athletics check.
I have put one dnd on the "not touching my table" pile along with wildemount and the other Crit Role book.
your over thinking the auto success on nat 20. For example it would be theoretically impossible for an orc barbarian to write a symphony. A nat 20 success could mean he manages to put some music together that doesn't sound completely Awful. That nat 20 doesn't make the orc barbarian the next Beethoven
Well making it that ability scores aren’t related with races completely destroyed already established lore about said races.
If my players want to switch up some ability scores they ask me the DM first because although I am completely fine with them doing it so they can play a half orc wizard and not feel weak, I don’t want them doing it and not telling me about it.
But at least it’s not official yet.
Didn't Tasha's cauldron basically set that up?
@@Psykolord1989 I don’t have Tasha’s cauldron so I wouldn’t know.
This video aged so poorly after the bs WotC has been doing
Death threats! I KNEW I forgot to send something! Oh well, I'm too lazy now...
Ah this video aged like fine milk
The DMs agression sounds pretty reasonable since last month...
I think you misunderstood some of the changes (unless they were changed since I did the survey for them). Ability boost aren't customizable like the rule in Tasha's, but linked to the background instead. It's still limited, just with the background rather than the race (personally I'd wish they stick to races being where the boost came from and have the customized boost being in the PHB as an option that's always available). Also, I thought people loved half-elves. I think they were the second most popular race on Beyond at one point. Weird they are throwing them and half-orcs out rather than use them as examples of how to make a half-race.
But you can make a custom background with whatever stats you want, so it's functionally not limited beyond having to be a +2/+1 or 3 +1's. They even put the custom background option in first before the 'set' backgrounds and everything.
@@subprogram32 So custom ability boosts with extra steps. I much prefer 5e where you can just choose where the points go to rather than creating an entire background that includes skill proficiency, tool proficiency, bonus language (why would town guards know dwarven?), a feat, and starting equipment. One of these is much easier for players than the other.
@@Meanlucario but, the default background IS custom... If you want to just use a sample background you can and just change the stats...
@@Meanlucario players already have to do both to create a character, what are you on about?
@@huttj509 So more work for the players and DM. Joy. 5e already simplified it with Tasha's, this is just making it more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm liking all the proposed changes thus far. I just find the reconfiguration of the racial stat modifiers a bit odd, because that's supposed to be a racial thing, not a "social" thing. I do remember something in 3.x that would split racial bonuses into "race", like resistance to poison/sleep, and ability score modifier as the same for everyone, and learned skills, like weapon proficiencies as part of the "social" stuff, like, you could have a dwarf that grew up in a mostly elven city, that has sword training, but he would still have his poison resistance and +2 Con modifier.
I’m vary happy that he mentioned the dragonborn. I was vary angry about that. That and the crit and inspiration rules. But I like the extra feat stuff
This was actually an informative summary of what One D&D is. Most other videos I've seen get deep into the nitty gritty about the changes, which is also useful, but this was great.
So my opinion about the races losing abilities and modifiers, now an Orc, an Elf, and a human are no longer an Orc, an Elf, and a Human. Say hello to Gray Human, Knife Eared Human, and Normal Human.
Gray Human and Knifed Eared Human - Normal?
Me - Put it in your blog
You know that they only removed ASI and left racial ablilites (and add some new ones)? I know they removed things like mask of the wild but tbh most folk I've seen playing wood elf will even not know what that ability was dooing If I ask them right now.
@@jakubchocholski8813 the ability score still feel important, to me at least. Cause with that natural + to Con you get the feel Goliaths are tough survivable people and with that bonus to dex Tabaxi are definitely one of the more nimble ones. But all of that being up to player background is stupid to me personally. If they want backgrounds to do more then have them do more in addition to race ability scores. And if that needs balancing then increase how high ability scores can go.
@@shadowofhawk55 why are they important though?
the strongest orc adventurer is just as strong as the strongest gnome adventurer and the strongest fairy adventurer and the strongest human adventurer.
If the end result is the same, then why not have the beginning the same?
@@fairystail1 Because, and this is to me personally, the starting point matters. Because the average Gnome isn't as strong as the average Orc. And level 1 characters are slightly above average members of their races. Also, I do think that it is bullshit a Gnome can get as strong as an Orc and I would like to see changes implemented to adapt that.
@@shadowofhawk55 ok but 2 issues then
1 we aren't playing the average gnome or the average orc.
the average gnome dies getting shanked by a dagger, your player character will need to be shanked quite a few times to die
2you are complaining about one dnd for making a change, the change you have an issue with is one that happened over 8 years ago.
Its like complaining about the latest edition of pokemon because your pokemon can hold berries when its been a thing for a while now.
My table, who switched game completely: Oh no! One D&D... anyway...
Bro why would wizards of the coast do that anyway if they still update 5th edition?
........money.
@@jakubchocholski8813 Or they could spend a month more to develop the game itself anyway to get extra cash in the first place
One of my favorite things about DND is that you can get someone who’s interested in playing into a game for absolutely free, even using online tools. There are a bunch of PDF scans of the handbook floating around, you can let them borrow dice and minis, or use a tool like Game Master Engine and have their first experience be fun and free without the commitment of buying the books
As a DM, heres my one gripe with One D&D. It takes a lot of power away from the DM amd gives it to the players. As a DM its very easy to be generous and relax certain rules if you feel like it suits your game. Wanna let your players gnome have +2 strength instead of intelligence, tell them they can. Monster rolled a crit that would kill a player, say it rolled a 19 instead. Alternatively its much harder to take that power away from players. Does having a bunch of super strength gnomes and mastermind goblins ruin the immersion of your game? Maybe your players are dominating fights and you want to challenge them more so you want to enforce crits. Now if you try to do anything like that the players can point to the new rules and say "but the rules say..." and bog down the session wit arguing. Most players dont like hearing that what the DM says goes.
TL;DR: its easy to be nice when the dm has the power, but much harder to be strict/challenging when the players have the power
Strange... For me, 1) the DM is right, 2) when the dm isn't check the rule N1 3) if you don't agree - what the DM says goes, and then you can argue about the rules after the session. The DM can 1) get you a bonus if it was a mistake 2) tell you it goes, it's a DM will.
"I am happy, but I WANT to be pissed off about it!!" is such an accurate summary - incredible video
Tbh, the only thing I hated in the UA testing was the "Nat 20 always succeed, Nat 1 always fails" rule. I get that plenty of people play that way, but I don't see why the auspices should be on me as the DM to tell someone "no you can't roll for that".... they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and that includes screw up in a glorious fashion that has little to no consequences and little to no benefits, because they rolled a Nat 20 on something that was effectively impossible, or alternatively, that although they fumbled throughout everything they did, because they developed their character to have expertise in whatever skill, that they still barely passed a skill check, when they rolled a nat 1.
You really should consider saving everyone's time by not making your players roll for guaranteed outcomes like that. A simple, "Are you sure" before a guaranteed fail and a quick acknowledgement of guaranteed success due to good stats will probably save precious game time.
@@tylerian4648 Well, the roll is to see if there are consequences, like they fall flat on their face doing an acrobatics check, and are prone, because rolled too low... or they tried intimidating someone important, and they roll high enough, so they don't start a combat or get thrown in jail immediately.
I mean if a 20 on the dice dosent succeed... why are they even rolling? its just wasting time at that point? just let them say they try it and then say you failed and theres no way you could of succeeded or whatever.
Same as if a 1 DOSENT fail, if the thing they are trying to do is So simple or easy that a 1 CAN NOT fail, why waste time rolling? theres a reason why you dont ask dice rolls for every step the players make or ever mundane action. if the outcome is guaranteed, its not a roll of chance
@@avlaenamnell6994 Because if they have a chance to avoid a combat encounter, after making a dumb decision, then that can saves hours, or even entire sessions worth of time spent in combat.
Also, I like to judge how much of a failure something is, and flavor up the scene and resulting failures descriptions, based on the degree of failure. Also, if someone can't fail but still rolls terribly, then I usually make them come up with some funny description of how/why they had a tough time at doing something they could otherwise "do in their sleep".
@@avlaenamnell6994 because people have different modifiers that allow them to get higher than a 20, which the target DC is. There some things that while unachievable to the average person can be achieved by an above average person, but aren't guaranteed
as soon as the dm said twitter, i was like yep.
Not a fan of removing racial based stats, and the reasoning for it is absurd
What even is the actual reasoning for it?
@@Alessus95 Paraphrasing, but having racial traits is racist. So to combat real world racism they are making all races equal in game.
I love how it's the bard being the voice of reason here when in most cases they are the ones in need of a voice of reason. Interesting
Waiting for 10 years after it's release when we get One D&D 2e.
Then One D&D 3e: The returnering!
It seems that a lot of people that are complaining about One D&D, and it seems 5e, are those who want a specific type of experience that they just cannot get anymore
I actually do feel this DM. I really do dislike a lot of the new rules.
DMs not being able to krit is just a lazy nerf to encounters, you can balance them differently (for example less monsters), and Death Saves are a thing anyway. Spells not critting is just a gimmik, since almost all spells dont require a hit roll in the first place.
Race / Biology not having any impact in the game is also very boring instead, race is now just cosmetic + 1 free second level spell and a resistance. I liked it way more when it actually was a meaningful choice.
Also they are appearantly not gonna introduce more meaningful feats or anything, so character custumisation will still be lackluster for most classes. (For anybody disagreeing, just imagine 2 pure class Paladins in the same game, both do basicly the exact same thing besides: 1 Channel Divinity use (if its used at all), and 1 level 7 aura + maybe 1 feat (assuming they dont want ASI at level 4)) Instead of moving away from "Everything is just the same" they moved further into more simplicity. Yes this might seem really nice for new players, but i firmly believe that more options in character creation is not something that will stop people from playing this game.
I hold out hope that wizards will maybe get it and change their design direction, but the way it is going currently i am very sure i wont be DMing the next edition and rather go to another system because this "one DnD" looks straight up boring.
about crits. the explaining of it (from a video who goes for hours, so it isn't even in the playtest) was: low lvl players die too easily/fast, when a monster crits
idk how that should play up to like lvl 10 or so,
and their would be other options too: death saving rules like in pf2e or something like that
and from the feats they showed: it all looks like "best in slot", if you go for healing, oyu will take that healing feat, if you go for dmg, you take that one feat, where you double dice or so (idk the names >-
@@astrid2432 jeah about the crits, i am getting that low level is to "Deadly" with crits, but maybe do something like "Racial HP Bonuses" like PF2 does i think?
Then you have player Characters with roughly double the hp at level 1 but it wont increase to much over the leveling course.
Also, in the end we are playing a dice game. If you dont want RNG, play a different game :D
@@holokom3330 pf2e has less problems and you can achieve crits way easier with beating the dc by +10
Option would be: giving a death saving system like pf2e, where you won't die just from getting a hit
That you usual have 3 chances to get back
Or: more hp
My leshy druid has at lvl 1 8hp ancestry + 8hp class + 3hp con mod, aka 19
Ac is 16, 10AC basic + 1AC from leather + 2AC from dex (max 4) + 3AC from proficiency in light and medium armor. Then + 2AC from raise a shield
A human Wizard has like 8hp ancestry + 6hp class + con mod
Armor would be 10AC + 3AC prof in unarmored + 0AC from explorer clothing + 5AC max with dex
A bit Special: healing and condition is a valid or even necessary thing
Wait until dnd players hear about warhammer 40k, You have to buy a rule book for the game, and each army you play, which is about £70 if you only play one army, and every 3ish years you have to buy them again.
No matter what they decide... our group is still gonna play how we want 😋😎
This aged like uncapped unrefridgerated milk.
I gotta say, I enjoy the idea of OneDnD. As a player it sounds interesting, and as a DM I'm not fully against stuff. I guess I'm just concerned? Let me explain.
1: For decades they have established lore for the Forgotten Realms. The fact they are essentially destroying mixed races sends alot of mixed messages, like "The mixing of races is a bad thing, only pure breeds allowed". Eliminating subraces, such as Mountain Dwarves, literally is destroying FR cultures, it is the definition of Cultural Genocide, which is sad to see and rather terrifying that they would just eliminate that many years of Lore, History, and so much more.
2: The fact you can use 5e stuff but its not an edition makes for some broken mechanics at face value. This causes an issue with feature interactions, class/race interactions, the broken CR system which will now be even more broken what with the player's being more unbalanced, and more. What's to say you can't just use an old race, since it's considered "Backwards Compatible". The thing with backwards compatibility is that its not supposed to make so many major changes, its tweaks broken aspects. But as it stands, the changes are major enough that 5e products don't operate properly or correctly with OneDnD. I enjoy 5e, flaws and all, just like 3.5 has flaws and is fine. And it would be sad to see nothing else come of 5e, but I imagine that's what happened with players who enjoyed 3.5 for a time. It should be ok for 5e to end, because it won't cause issues as a whole for the game going forward to lay 5e to rest. Honestly they've been wanting to make SO many changes in the past couple years and had ideas as optional ways of implementing the game, like choosing stat increases, but then made it the base line and enforced it with new books without an option with preset modifiers and such. Let the edition rest, make OneDnD truly it's own thing.
3: I am 100% down for nerfing the Magic Users. Mages in 5e are quite powerful, from both a player and DM perspective. Not allowing them crits actually helps balance that aspect of the game, and that's a welcome edition. In fact I often home brew that rule in for the non-magic users don't feel so undercut and it balances the room out. However, I think its sad to see DM's aren't allowed to crit? Part of DnD's bit is you are strong, yes. But you aren't a God. You are mortal. Someone stabbing you in the heart or brain SHOULD do more damage, and it raises an inherent threat to the party. 5e in comparison to lets say 3.5, or 2e, takes away from this idea of killing the party off more it feels with how they've set it up. It protects players a bit more, which is nice to a degree. It's not impossible to kill them off, and a critical leads to this idea that things can always take a random turn for the worst, as anything dealing with Random Chance should. That's why we have Nat 1 rolls for players. But removing that ability from DM's feels.... I guess like it's only about the players. I don't think a DM killing off a player should be the goal, but people dying is a natural part of the story of DnD, that's where the random chance is at. Someone who doesn't want their character to die and would throw a fit over that isn't thinking about the story as a whole, they are thinking solely of themselves like they are all that's important. That's not to say someone being killed isn't a targeted deal, but that's only specific situations, which that DM needs to not be DMing, leave personal squabbles at the door kinda deal. Removing Crits for a DM is just 1 more way the Players aren't concerned, tension can't be randomly placed on them, it now has to be purposeful. Some of the greatest moments are born from the most dire. And in this light, a DM roleplaying an NPC can no longer Crit, so I guess an NPC can't randomly save the party now against all odds.
4: With the full throttle push for OneDnD and it's online presence, there was a weird underlying notion with the phrase "It's the one stop shop for all your online DnD" which subtly sounded like a threat to other popular websites like Roll20. This doesn't exactly toss out Roll20 as a viable online TTRPG platform, but Hasbro being the parent company to Wizards of the Coast could monopolize it for the monetary/financial gain. And while they are a company and need to make a money to stay afloat, I look to WotC's other big game, Magic the Gathering, where over the past few years we have seen quality go down but pricing continue to increase for products, with an even bigger drive to release products. The hope is that not all these decisions are being made purely from a greed standpoint, and hope it's from a point of wanting a Good Product. I'm just afraid with what we have been seeing, both from Magic and DnD, that money is their Only goal and Priority. And that's my biggest fear. Most of all these decisions are not born from genuinity, but from greed. I hope that's not the case, I want to see this game succeed. None of us want to see DnD go under. But it's fearful to see their decisions.
This isn't to say the game will be bad, I've left my feedback with them already. I'm just afraid of the future of the game with how they are going about it, just like I am for Magic the Gathering because of Extremely similar thoughts, and we are seeing many things in Magic die off as a result. Their decisions are effecting that game in large ways, and the hope is we don't see that in DnD. I love the game, and don't want to stop playing it. I want to be able to show it to my kids one day as the thing we love to play, not the edition we played back when it still existed or was still good. Nobody wants another 4e scenario.
"So, what's got your dice rolling nat ones today" is amazing