Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeah, the monk especially is in bad need of a flavor do-over, and the Barbarian to a slightly lesser extent as well. We’re probably stuck with the names though.
D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
At the very least, the fact that they're explicitly rolling "1st level feats" into Backgrounds puts the kibosh on the idea that they're going to do absolutely nothing whatever in most cases.
This is pretty clearly a "5.5e," even if they intend to call it "One D&D." Needing to include a disclaimer like the following:
This is pretty clearly a "5.5e," even if they intend to call it "One D&D." Needing to include a disclaimer like the following:
Means it's not quite as absolutely unchanged as some thought.
One of my hopes for a new setting is after they fix races is for a tradition agnostic viewing of how the races would look in a setting with 5.5e's rules.
A world were exceptional humans all have feats, a nation of dragoborn, and elves trancing ev'vywhere.
My money is on Iomandra.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Could be neat. Two of the best D&D settings to date, Eberron and Nentir Vale (don’t @ me), came from doing exactly that with previous editions. Well, NV kinda built the rules and the setting in parallel, but still.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
This is about what I thought they'd try. A couple of boxed texts as a "conversion document" is pretty mild.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Barbarian is, IMO untenable with their emphasis on cultural inclusion and sensitivity. And Monk I think is probably better served by being transitioned to another old Edition name for the Class, the Mystic.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
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.
This document pretty conclusively proves that, at the very least, "completely backwards compatible" does not mean "only minor/cosmetic changes or rearrangements of existing effects." This is a legit top-to-bottom re-evaluation. The fundamental underlying math isn't going to change (sadly), but their approach to how it works may do so.
That Healer feat, for example, actually looks almost kinda-sorta serviceable as a legit replacement for Cleric healing. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new Fighter subclass, perhaps a rewrite (and redemption) of the Banneret/PDK, that gets Healer for free and leverages it for other benefits. If so, "One D&D" may be very slightly more of a "4e wasn't THAT bad" revision than I had thought.
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
Quickleaf
Legend
You know it's not just marketing because they put the "One" before the brand name.
Not like those Pepsi and X-Box chumps.
"Guys, I've got this great idea for our new initiative. D&D One..."
"Nah, that's derivative, and feels like a blatant marketing ploy."
"Wait. Wait. One D&D! Eh? Eh?"
"Ooooo. I like!"
Similar Threads
