D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[Haplo781]

Sure. But there were several people who argued that making feats non-optional was totally breaking any semblance of backwards compatibility. Or that they couldn't make any significant changes to classes, for the same reason.


Oh my God, that...that would be so good...I am legitimately kind of upset that that might happen, because I LOVE the concept of Iomandra and always wanted to play a game there. Which means I might have to play 5th edition "One D&D" in order to get it...

Better to have a book that can you have to convert than no book at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

My money is on Iomandra.

Well damn. This is the first I’m hearing of this but it sounds awesome!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Better to have a book that can you can convert than no book at all.

I mean, I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, there were a LOT of people, on this specific forum, who were very explicitly saying that the "backwards compatibility" statement essentially guaranteed that no major changes could occur. This document proves that major changes are almost certainly coming.

Well damn. This is the first I’m hearing of this but it sounds awesome!

Oh yeah, Iomandra is friggin' awesome.

 

[Azzy]

Sure. But there were several people who argued that making feats non-optional was totally breaking any semblance of backwards compatibility. Or that they couldn't make any significant changes to classes, for the same reason.

It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.

Based on the statements I've heard from several users on this very forum, the possibility of any feats, of any kind, ever being non-optional is a borderline dealbreaker for them. (Personally, I think "the more, the merrier," but that's neither here nor there.) It certainly, as I said, puts the kibosh to the idea that old books can be used absolutely 100% flawlessly with no changes at all.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I'm not really challenging that. I'm just saying, there were a LOT of people, on this specific forum, who were very explicitly saying that the "backwards compatibility" statement essentially guaranteed that no major changes could occur. This document proves that major changes are almost certainly coming.


Oh yeah, Iomandra is friggin' awesome.

A lot of the argument was over what they meant by "backwards compatible," and that's fairly clear now. Which I think it was before, but now it is aggressively explicit.

 

[Minigiant]

Just realized that unarmed strike hits can automatically grapple.
Time to edit Sulpex chart on my Ogre Luchador

 

[Charlaquin]

It looks like feats may be only going to be non-optional at 1st level. At higher levels, the choice between ASIs and feats are still there, so they may still be option except at character creation.

Do we know that will be the case? My money would be on them cleaning up the clunkiness of having ASIs at certain levels but you can take a Feat instead of the DM lets you and instead making +2 to an ability score (or +1 to two ability scores) a repeatable 4th level Feat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just realized that unarmed strike hits can automatically grapple.
Time to edit Sulpex chart on my Ogre Luchador

Yup, now PCs grapple the same way monsters have been doing it this whole time. Good change, in my opinion.

 

[Aldarc]

Presumably because it hasn’t been changed.

Yet. Who knows? Other changes with Rest could be coming later as it may rock the boat with pre-existing class options too much.

My degree of disappointment in this playtest material cannot be expressed in words.

Have you tried using interpretive dance?

I recall Crawfod talking about how he would redo Warlocks from the bottom up to make the Patron more of the primary choice, and roll the pact more into those. I also recall the designers talking about choosing Subclass after Level 1 not really working the way they thought, at all. I think we will see some serious overhauls at least proposed.

I agree. The issue I see with that, however, is that one of the top cited reasons IME people pick up the Warlock is also its build-your-own-warlock approach.

I believe Tiefling is derived from the German Teufel, which comes from the same root as the English Devil, along with the suffix -ling meaning lineage. I would guess Ardling has a similar linguistic explanation. Probably from the Gaelic árd, meaning “high” (but more in the sense of being important rather than physical elevation).

Not quite. "Tief" is the German word for "deep." So it's likely meant by creator Wolfgang Baur to evoke the lower planes.