D&D (2024) Feats still optional in 1D&D: and other notes from the survey results

[UngeheuerLich]

As is the case in almost all business/branding/marketing stuff:

Reputation and perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facts

It doesn't matter that the resulting product is going to almost certainly be the 5.5e (or "5.50" or whatever) that everyone's been expecting for the past 2-3 years. It doesn't matter that all this circumlocution looks horrible and sounds stupid and requires tortured logic.

Preserving the appearance and perception is paramount. Image is everything. Facts are inconvenient weights one must deftly navigate around.

Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.

Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

*I define what I mean with fundamental game design/mechanic:

(Matrix)ThAC0 -> BAB -> half level bonus -> proficiency bonus.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.

Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

*I define what I mean with fundamental game design/mechanic:

(Matrix)ThAC0 -> BAB -> half level bonus -> proficiency bonus.

My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

an argument can be made it is 5.5e not 6e, and the exact place where you draw the line is just a bit of discussion..,. my issue is like

My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.

yeah people are pretending there is no line it is just the 2014 book with slight errata

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.

Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.

 

[DEFCON 1]

People are getting way way way too hung up on what everyone is calling everything. Every term, every name... none of it matters.

And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't real feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:

In 2024 WotC will publish a set of books. And you will either choose to buy them or not buy them. And all that matters is how that game works for you, regardless of what it or its various pieces are called. If you don't like it, then you won't buy it. If you do, then you will. Simple as that. And nothing any of us schmucks on EN World have said up to that point will change it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't real feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:

I find it funny and sad at the same time how a few people generally distrust the designers or corporate people in general.

I think out of responsibility for people who just want to play D&D and happen to google about OneD&D and land here, we should at least try to make sure that they know, the sky is not falling and 5e is not going away. That feats, although a subset of them are replacing background traits are still mostly optional.

So I am not hung up or anything. I just dislile the negativity spread by a few people who disliked 5e in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

No, because it is still a feat.

This is only a name. "Feats" in 5e are something you can opt into in place of your ASI. In 5.5 the first level "feat" is a feat in name only. It replaces no ASI and is just the same as any other first level class or racial ability. It's something you just get. Getting the 1st level "feat" in no way means that the 4th, 8th, etc. ASIs will allow players to choose feats. Feats are still optional.

If they designed a completely new set of mechanics for it, which were clearly distinct from feats and could not be substituted for feats, and which could not be acquired any other way (except perhaps as a feat, loosely similar to 13th Age's "Further Backgrounding" feat), then yes, it could be that. But they aren't doing that, and it is extremely unlikely that they will take the time to draft a completely new system that clearly and specifically differentiates itself from feats in order to achieve that end.

If someone is having a hissy fit because the 1st level ability is called a "feat" instead of a Goomer Stomper or something, I don't really have much sympathy for them. Nobody is forcing them to add feats to the game. Those are still optional.

Genuine question: why do you seem to think that literally just changing the name would alter the situation?

Because the "feat" is literally no different than Rage, Wild Shape, Channel Divinity or Relentless Endurance. It's just an ability you get for free at 1st level. People are getting upset at quite literally only the name and nothing else. That's why a name change would alter the situation.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to use 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it is something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.

There's a feat to give you proficiency with saves. So we have to remove all free feat proficiencies from classes so that your characters aren't using feats. We also have to get rid of halfling luck, since lucky is a feat and we can't have characters getting free feats. And of course nobody can be proficient in free skills at 1st level, since there's a feat that does that, too.

The 1st level feat is a feat in name only. It's just another ability like you get from race or class.

 

[Horwath]

just write 1st level feats as background features.

and keep them simple.

have a 4th level feat:
+1 ASI
gain additional background feature.
you can take this feat multiple times.

balance out "background features" to go in hand with half-feats without ASI.

Though:
+2 HP at 1st level, +1 HP for every level after.
when you spend a HD to heal, you heal +1 HP extra.
This background feature can be taken twice

Skilled:
+2 skill proficiencies
This background feature can be taken twice

Lucky:
just keep the advantage part.
it's strong enough without giving enemies disadvantage

Magic initiate:
learn any two cantrips.
You casting stat is highest of int, wis or cha

Fighting style:
learn any fighting style

Tavern brawler:
1d6 unarmed damage,
can make single unarmed attack as Bonus action
Furniture as weapons

Savage attacker:
removed from history!

Crafter and Musician:
add; gain expertise in one tool/music instrument. Expertise in tool/instruments are mostly ineffective for gameplay, but adds that special flavor that you are best at your chosen craft.

Healer:
remove rerolls(it's too much of them), just add that you improve your targets HD healing by your prof bonus. Target adds it's Con mod as normal.

Armor training reworked as Martial training:
you improve your 1st level class armor category by two steps:
none->medium
light->heavy
you an exchange two armor categores for Martial weapons proficiency or one armor category for extra Class skill.

Speedster, moved to 1st level background features,
You increase your speed by 10ft. The end.

 

[Maxperson]

Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.

This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Of course, we know for a fact that quite a bit will change, even if we don't know exactly what or how. WotC absolutely must make significant changes or they are wasting ink and a ton of money on books that nobody will buy. We are going to be getting 5.5 at the very least.