D&D (2024) Pulse check on 1D&D excitement level

[mamba]

More homogeneous is by definition less interesting.

not really, every class getting their subclass at level 3 is more homogenous than one class getting it at level 1, another at 3 and yet another at 7. That does not make it less interesting

 

[Clint_L]

Here's the thing for me: when they moved from 2e to 3e, they gave us a game that felt fundamentally different and gave us a new way to play. The same happened with the 3.5 to 4e transition, and again when 5e came out. I like having a variety of ways to play, and even if I eventually decide I liked an older version more, the novelty of a new experience is nice and helps me think about how I want to run or play whatever else I decide on. And it's not like your old books go away. Like I liked 5e at first, appreciated some of what it was doing, started getting tired of some things, then went back to running 4e, as I felt it fit what I wanted out of a game better, but still appreciated my time running 5e. When I look at the D&D One playtest materials, my main thought is "if I wanted to play something that felt like 5e, why wouldn't I just play the 5e I already have?" It kind of feels like when you buy a vacuum on Amazon, then it keeps recommending you more vacuums. I already have one of these, I don't need another.

That’s sort of the point of 1D&D: you aren’t their main target. You already own 5e. They think they have a winning formula and just want to keep it evergreen.

 

[Clint_L]

Honestly if they just separated combat and non-combat feats and made sure that martials each got 4-5 free non-combat feats over 20 levels, that would help a lot. And I don't just mean skill boosters, but more things like getting swim or climb speeds, direction sense, perfect information recall, improved sense of smell, extreme carrying capacity, etc.

But martial classes are already strong in 5e, aside from monks. Fighters, barbarians, and paladins are near the top of every tier ranking. Why do they need a boost?

 

[Incenjucar]

But martial classes are already strong in 5e, aside from monks. Fighters, barbarians, and paladins are near the top of every tier ranking. Why do they need a boost?

Internet tier lists are not especially compelling these days, and paladins are a half caster class. Monks are also rather magical. Martial classes are defined by the lack of magical abilities, not by their use of melee weapons.

5E fighters are still limited in option variety unless you pick up a magic-based subclass or the one actually interesting subclass. The fighter should be based on Battle Master, or Battle Master should be its own class. I'm less familiar with barbarian, but they seem to mostly have magical subclasses, with rather limited options within their class beyond Primal Knowledge and Fast Movement.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

if you filed off the serial numbers and just put the combat abilities of the PC classes to the Monsters as a combat game I would think 5e was fair to well done on balance (not perfect, but even 4e wasn't)

let me start with as a wizard, a cleric, a bard, a sorcerer, a druid or a rogue I can make a GREAT combatant. Fighter Barbarian Warlock and Paldiden standd over them a bit, and Ranger and monk under them a bit... but oveer all if we only do combat mechanics they are pretty good.

The classes that (IMO) do the worst monk and ranger both are still able to be useful and be 'not TOO far behind" with a bit of work on optimization

I have seen a fair share of rangers and monks, and they were feeling in no way behind. That was up to level 11.

It is just that some abilities feel clunky because of bonus action economy.

TWF and Monk unarmed strikes with no bonus action cost immediately remedies parts of it. A monk instantly can chose to keep up bonus action dodge for quite a while, making him a formidable evasive tank.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have seen a fair share of rangers and monks, and they were feeling in no way behind. That was up to level 11.

yeah me too... infact we go out of our way to make that happen.

in gneeral we all agree on a power level and limit ourselves to it (most of the time) but that then puts extra limits on concepts. Last time I ran a martial only game the monk was the break out hit. Last time I played a game with a ranger he was good... BUT in the game with the ranger we went out of our way not to have any full casters and nobody took nature skills but him (that group was a rogue, a multi class artificer paladin, and 2 fighters... one of the fighters was multi/dip into wizard and had the eldritch knight subclass and called himself the party mage)

 

[Dustin Cooper]

That’s sort of the point of 1D&D: you aren’t their main target. You already own 5e. They think they have a winning formula and just want to keep it evergreen.

On one hand, I can totally see making changes for future players who aren't here yet, and that of course means they don't have to try appealing to experienced players like me. But on the other, why are they doing all these playtests and videos that are clearly aimed at people who already have 5e? Why put this much effort into a group that isn't your main target audience? Wouldn't it make more sense to do some kind of focus group testing or something that looks more into the concerns and wants of the people they actually want to buy this? I guess they could also be doing that to some extent, but the videos at least indicate that the feedback they're taking is from these surveys, and I'd expect other changes if they were focusing on inexperienced players.

 

[Argyle King]

One of my biggest questions about D&D going forward is "what are my options if I want a version of D&D with more 'complexity' instead of less?"

I do believe there are changes to be made to make 5e better. At the same time, 5e already tends toward being simpler than I would like (in certain areas of the game,) so I imagine that simplifying more as a design goal leads to a very different game than I would like.

I'm open to being proven wrong. 4e was simpler than 3e in a lot of ways, but 4e also added some tactical complexity and moving parts to encounter design which were interesting to balance that out.

 

[Cruentus]

One of my biggest questions about D&D going forward is "what are my options if I want a version of D&D with more 'complexity' instead of less?"

You're probably looking then at either "optional" material from the new DMG, much like the optional stuff in the current DMG, or 3PP material.

The "more complexity" era of DnD is pretty much gone. 5e was a huge success, and they're not going to mess with the magic sauce of simplicity, since they're really looking to hook new players and grow their base. Existing players and existing DM's already know how to add more complexity to the game. The problem has been, in my experience (40+ years playing DnD), that 5e is actually somewhat difficult to hack, due to the differing recharge rates of spells and abilities, and making changes to suit my game ends up with cascading impacts that require me to pretty much rewrite so much, that it ends up not being worth it. I ended up just stopping wrestling with 5e, and chose games that met my level of complexity requirement, and do what I would like them to do in terms of theme, etc. Its been so much better...

With re: to homogeneity, its pretty much been an intentional design decision to give every class the ability to participate in everything all day, every day. Cantrips, save to end spell effects, short durations, HD healing on short rests, all classes able to stay somewhat even on damage capability and armor up (especially with MC'ing). Gone are the days where the wizard casts one spell, then helps carry stuff with the occasional staff/sling/crossbow shot (depending on edition), or where you might be held by a spell for an hour. People don't want those things to interfere with their play experience. But when we played in earlier editions, we knew that those disparities were possible, and we selected our classes knowing the ups and downs of them. I ran a 5e campaign where we had no martials (all casters or MC'd casters), and the party had less than zero problem dealing with everything I threw at them (without being a 'killer DM'), unless I threw 4x CR creatures at them. It was rather eye-opening.

 

[mamba]

On one hand, I can totally see making changes for future players who aren't here yet, and that of course means they don't have to try appealing to experienced players like me. But on the other, why are they doing all these playtests and videos that are clearly aimed at people who already have 5e? Why put this much effort into a group that isn't your main target audience? Wouldn't it make more sense to do some kind of focus group testing or something that looks more into the concerns and wants of the people they actually want to buy this?

tell me how you identify people that do not play D&D yet but will probably pick it up 2 to 5 years from now… also, I am not sure their input is all that valuable. Since they do not know the rules, they cannot really tell you what is an improvement and what is not.

Also, the goal is to bring the 5e players along and not create a rift. So while they have an eye on making things easier to understand, they still clearly target their current customers, and for good reason, and yes, the fact that we have the videos and surveys supports this.