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

[FireLance]

First, we're talking about 5e (well, really 5.5e) not other editions.

Second, wtf does "exceptional but otherwise typical" even mean?

Third, assuming there is an answer to #2, you cannot logically just jump to a specific statistical interpretation. Even if the language just said "PCs are above average" it could mean they further out on the same curve but it could also mean that they are on their own curve.

Well, to state my assumptions and arguments more clearly:

1. The range of ability scores for non-PC members of their races follows 3d6 plus racial ASIs. This approximates a normal distribution, and is one way to represent statements such as, "the average gnome is smarter than the average halfling".

2. Assuming a 4d6-1 plus racial ASI generation method for PCs, the PCs' ability scores still fall within the standard range for other members of their race, but are biased towards higher numbers. They are exceptional compared to the norm/mean, but they don't exceed the typical range of ability scores for their race and hence are not "atypical".

3. Using the standard array or point buy without racial ASI PC generation methods still creates PCs with ability scores that are higher than the norm/mean and fall within the standard range for their race (so still exceptional but not atypical), but a 17 Int halfling will be further along the bell curve for his race than a 17 Int gnome. This is not my preferred approach, but I can understand why WotC wants to adopt it.

Your assumptions about the distribution of non-PC ability scores seem to be different from mine, and that is fine. I am just stating my preferences and my conclusions if my assumptions are accepted.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get that and I hope they word it more succinctly in future revisions, but it feels like they’re devoting a lot of space for a bunch of examples no one is going to take as written when they could just say “tool proficiency, pick one.”

It just seems like some sort of simplified life path system would have flowed better than “here are a bunch of packages that you’re going to tweak anyway or just make one up”

They should definitely just toss out like 3 samples and say "no really - custom is the default."

The thing is, the examples may “just” be examples, but they’re really not just examples. They’re also there so people who don’t want to make all those choices don’t have to. Sure, they show you what you can build with the custom background syestem, but they also allow you to just say “I’m a wood elf ranger with a soldier background” and have your character be ready to play.

 

[JEB]

Proficiency isn't changing
HD and HP aren't changing
Proficiency Bonus isn't changing
Saving throws aren't changing
Weapons and Armor aren't changing.

We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have talked about doing new things with HD, for example.

 

[Parmandur]

It is a really weird use of "edition" and it's surprising it's caught on (mostly) with the entire RPG industry. But then D&D has almost always been the vast majority of the RPG industry, though never more so than now.

Let's see. There's OD&D 1974. No thief and Chainmail as the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Greyhawk which added the thief and the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Blackmoor, which added the monk and assassin and rules for underwater. So that's three "editions" before we've even completed the initial line of books for the game. AD&D before and after Unearthed Arcana. AD&D2E before and after the Player's Options. Etc.

I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.

By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:

1. OD&D
2. Holmes Basic
3. AD&D
4. B/X
5. BECMI
6. AD&D 2E
7. Black Box Basic
8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
12. "4E"
13. "4E" Essentials
14. "5E"
15. "OneD&D"

 

[Parmandur]

It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?)

Those are only the examples: by default, wvery Backgroujd is customized by yhe player from the ground up.

 

[edosan]

I'm not a fan of Inspiration as a racial trait. I am on board the "Inspiration should be reliably expected" train. It is a cool mechanic and is really under-utilized. One element of Inspiration I like is that it is agnostic to your character choices - everyone has equal opportunity to get it (or not get it, which is more often the case). So I don't like it becoming an element of your "build."

Yeah, Inspiration was always a great concept poorly executed. I got that they cribbed it from Savage Worlds and other games to give a mechanical advantage for role playing your character suboptimally but in practice DMs forget to give it out and players forget to use it. I’d love to see it fixed.

Ardlings are a mechanic in search of a story.

They feel so random…”okay, you’re a teifling, but sorta good, plus you can be a cat or a crane or something!” I honestly don’t get what they’re going for here.

I kind of want dwarven lineages and halfling lineages to be more than just proficiency differences and fluff.

Yes, I want my races to feel different as well. Sometimes I think they’re going a bit too far into the “all the aliens are humans with different foreheads” of Star Trek sometimes. It feels like they’re almost trying to make backgrounds too impactful at the expense of lineage.

I like pre-made backgrounds.

I think they’re a good way to get people thinking about their characters and it adds a different dimension but I’d rather see “CULTIST: you were part of a close-knit religious group, maybe it was secret, maybe it wasn’t. Are you still in it, or did you quit? You decide!” then you go back to the formula to pick your languages and tool proficiencies and stuff. Heck, give me fifty like that and I’d love it.

 

[Parmandur]

I wonder if the 2024 MM or DMG will even suggest customizing NPCs with racial traits, or if generic NPC statblocks will be expected to reflect all races.

I expect a table with abilities to give NPCs the feel of a race (like Tremorsense fkr. Dwarven Veteran, etc.).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The sidebar literally is there to show that you don’t need to be reticent about mixing things from across 5e’s publication.

This is their explicitly stated intention. Heck, it's probably part of the reason they're calling it "One D&D." It's the same game, see! One D&D, not multiple!

Having seen this kind of refresh happen in every edition, I think that intention is optimistic. It's not even something related to the design of the game, really. It could be the exact same text with the word "elf" replaced with the word "sandwich" and people would be adverse about mixing. One need not be reticent. People will be, anyway. That kind of code switching and re-learning will require more of people than they may be willing to give (when my player says her mountain dwarf criminal has the alert feat, what does that mean? Can she be surprised? Does she have heavy armor proficiency? Screw it, everyone just use the new rules 'cuz that's what's actively supported.)

 

[JEB]

I think most other RPGs actually follow more of a normal publishing world approach, honestly.

By my reckoning, which may be incomplete:

1. OD&D
2. Holmes Basic
3. AD&D
4. B/X
5. BECMI
6. AD&D 2E
7. Black Box Basic
8. Rules Cyclopedia Basic
9. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers
10. "Third Edition" just "Dungeons & Dragons
11. "3.5" (slightly worse than OneD&D even!)
12. "4E"
13. "4E" Essentials
14. "5E"
15. "OneD&D"

D&D Next actually had a few published products as well, if that counts.

 

[Parmandur]

We won't actually know if that's true until the playtest is finished. The designers have actually talked about doing new things with HD, for example.

Crawford explicitly said thst they are fine with people using theb2014 core rulebooksnto run the tests, because they are mostly not changing. He also said that future UA would be more focused than this one was, dialing in on very specific elements (Classes, probably).