OneDnD First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

Faolyn

(she/her)
Which is completely and utterly pointless.

People complain about ASIs in races, so they make them "floating". Now, they move them to backgrounds, which by default are completely customizable anyway so the ASI are, in fact, still floating; making the "change" utterly pointless.

It's like, when with the devs finally get it. Just make ASI part of generating ability scores or bake them into the numbers by default...

Anyway, bowing out.
I think a lot of people aren't going to bother customizing their backgrounds.

And I don't think the change is pointless here. With races, it outright says that you're born better than other creatures in some way. With backgrounds, it says that you managed to improve yourself with time and effort. A noble has gotten a good education and learned manners and diplomacy, so raising Cha and Int make sense. A gladiator has learned how to fight and how to please the crowd, so raising Strength and Cha make sense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I should clarify, my initial very negative reaction was more about how people described the new stuff than about the media itself. Rewatching the video while not freaking out, it does seem to be that they want to be able to make PCs with stuff from any point in 5e’s publication life, without any conversion.
That makes sense. I was a little surprised at your negative reaction, as these seem like changes I would have guessed you would mostly be in favor of. Personally I don’t love everything in this UA, but I do love the general direction, and I’d say most of the changes look positive to me. My biggest gripes are the changes to nat 1s and 20s (which are easy to ignore) and the Aardling race, which I low-key hate. But, I can accept that I’m just not the target audience for them.
 


Ixal

Hero
I think a lot of people aren't going to bother customizing their backgrounds.

And I don't think the change is pointless here. With races, it outright says that you're born better than other creatures in some way. With backgrounds, it says that you managed to improve yourself with time and effort. A noble has gotten a good education and learned manners and diplomacy, so raising Cha and Int make sense. A gladiator has learned how to fight and how to please the crowd, so raising Strength and Cha make sense.
And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.

It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings and throwing stones? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else. Dwarves being able to handle beer (and other posion) better because of their constitution? Not anymore.

"But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Halflings really seem to have lost out in terms of design space here - very boring compared to the rest. And I really wish they'd taken more of a pass on Brave - conditional advantage on saves always slows things down at the table.
Yeah, Stealth proficiency in place of poison resistance or the preternatural ability to hide behind Medium and larger creatures feels like a huge nerf. Though I can see wanting to change Naturally Stealthy since so many DMs outright refuse to let it work the way it clearly says it does (and same for Mask of the Wild), replacing it with Stealth proficiency is just incredibly disappointing.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Seeing as you have to land (or fall) at the end of movement, just fluff it as a prodigious leap!
I mean, ok, that works for cats. Not so much for like… I dunno, cows or something.

This is just a divide between different types of furry. I like my anthros to cleave very close to the animals they’re based on, because animals are freaking cool, and their behaviors and traits make for a really cool lens through which to reframe human behaviors and traits. But @Ruin Explorer is absolutely right, there’s a different subset of furries to whom “anthro but also an angel with magic spectral wings sometimes” is going to be everything they’ve ever wanted in an OC.
 

Mallus

Legend
First reactions:

The animal-headed celestial race looks great. Because I’ve wanted to play a character based on those cynocephalic St. Christopher paintings for years. Also because I put an entire city of similar creatures in my latest homebrew. Great minds and all…

Moving ASIs to Backgrounds is… fine.

The bonus languages in the Backgrounds are… kinda random? It feels like structure for structure’s sake.

Starting with a Feat is good. Feats are fun.

Giving the magic-y races a standardized cantrip/spell/spell is nice and elegant.

Spells can’t crit anymore???
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.

It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else.

"But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.
Because, when applied to sentient beings in a fantasy setting, it can be unpleasantly and pointlessly limiting.

It can also be bigoted at times, when done badly. Especially when it comes to the mental stats.

But take your good elven archers and your good halfling slingers. Those are both cultural things that should have nothing to do with their biology. Elves aren't born knowing how to use a bow. And in D&D, both would be represented by a higher Dex, which means that there's no mechanical flavor differences between the two.

Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave? Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I really have no idea why anyone cares if it is a new edition or not. If it is balanced to work with old 5e stuff, or at least enough that it doesn't matter a lot, and the basic concepts don't change, who cares? But I'm sure we'll get hundreds of posts debating it.
It matters because everything coming out from now on, including likely the bulk of 3PP material, will be replaced by the new presentation and format. The 2014 5e will be erased effectively, because the new stuff will still be 5e officially.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave?

You didn't have to did you? You could have made it your dump stat and been much less dextrous than a stereotypical elf, right? Even after the old style ASI.

Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons

You could have made str one you maxed out in initial character creation right, and been much stronger than an average member of the stereotypically strong races?

----

But anyway, I don't particularly see the point of requiring them to go with a background either. Why can't my outrageously strong character have decided to be a scholar, instead of developing the strength by doing something physical?
 
Last edited:

Ixal

Hero
Because, when applied to sentient beings in a fantasy setting, it can be unpleasantly and pointlessly limiting.

It can also be bigoted at times, when done badly. Especially when it comes to the mental stats.

But take your good elven archers and your good halfling slingers. Those are both cultural things that should have nothing to do with their biology. Elves aren't born knowing how to use a bow. And in D&D, both would be represented by a higher Dex, which means that there's no mechanical flavor differences between the two.

Why should I have to play a dexterous elf ex-slave? Why couldn't I have built muscles during my hard labor but never developed that elven grace? because I was being being a slave and couldn't attend mandatory elf dancing lessons.
Thats frankly nonsense.

Why are elves and halflings better archers or throwers? Not because of background but because of their biology simply allowing better hand-eye coordination. Same way as for example Tau in Wh40K. Yes they might not know how to use a bow just because they are born (aka, playing a class with no bow proficiency), but their hand-eye coordination stays. The same way a chimps or gorillas muscle density is way higher than a humans so a small chimp could rival a grown man. You are talking about different races, of course there would be biological differences.

It doesn't matter that your elven slave performed hard labour his entire life. The dexterity is in his genes, the same way as having two eyes and two arms. It doesn't have to develop. What your elf develops is a lot of strength, represented by putting a high score into strength. That is what training represents. But ASI you get just for existing.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
And why wouldn't some races be biologically better than others in an area?
A crow is smarter than a pigeon. And a (small) gorilla can easily knock out an adult human. Or if you want to account for the "everyone can interbreed with everyone", a boxer is stronger than a poodle because they were bred for strength.

It makes no sense that vastly different species/races are biologically completely equal in all regards and it destroys most flavor those races had. Elves are good archers? Halflings are good with slings and throwing stones? Why? They are not an ounce better than everyone else. Dwarves being able to handle beer (and other posion) better because of their constitution? Not anymore.

"But your training....". Training is not represented by ASI but by the stats array and how you distribute stats. An elf who toiled day in day out as slave Conan style? Highest score into strength, obviously. Doesn't change that he would still be more dexterous than other slaves because of his biology.
Sure, that is a fine way to look at it and I have similar tendencies. However, WotC has taken the stance that is more fun to let people play what they want. A PC is an exception version of any particular race, so why not let the Player determine how those exceptional qualities are expressed.

I mean I am all for racial limits (like a human can only get to STR 18, but dragonborn could get to STR 20, etc.), but this concept is probably better for the game as a whole and I can also houserule racial limits (or bonus or penalties)
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
The only "old 5E stuff" that they've confirmed One D&D to work with are 5E adventures (and "supplements," which are deliberately undefined). If the only 5th Edition D&D materials you own are the published adventures, you're right: there's little to worry about.

But I've spent a great deal of money on the 5th Edition D&D books and digital content through D&D Beyond and the Roll20 Marketplace. It's unclear how much of my current material will be compatible (or accessible) in the future, and until I know for certain, I think it matters a great deal.
I also have a lot of 3PP material, which from the looks of this will also be in serious danger of being invalidated.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I mean, ok, that works for cats. Not so much for like… I dunno, cows or something.
But the cow jumped OVER the moon! :p

This is just a divide between different types of furry. I like my anthros to cleave very close to the animals they’re based on, because animals are freaking cool, and their behaviors and traits make for a really cool lens through which to reframe human behaviors and traits. But @Ruin Explorer is absolutely right, there’s a different subset of furries to whom “anthro but also an angel with magic spectral wings sometimes” is going to be everything they’ve ever wanted in an OC.

I agree that it would be better if there were a few options to choose from other than just wings (which is also kinda close to what Aasimar get.
 

SakanaSensei

Adventurer
This is really one of the best little looks into the future of DnD that I could have expected. Honestly, the only thing I was disappointed by was seeing that Bonus Actions will be sticking around: really wish they had felt free to crib the 3 Action economy from PF2E and adjust from there, but that's a different topic.

I'm very excited to start seeing some of the monster design that builds around this new paradigm. It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up against some of the better designed 3PP monster books like Tome of Foes or what we've been able to see so far from Flee, Mortals! My main gripe with 5E has always been combat, especially as a 4E baby. Fights are soooo long, and while they were in 4E too, at least they were mechanically interesting. If classes and monsters add some of that zhuzh back in, I'll be a happy camper.

Oh, and spell lists based on power source? Wonderful. Each class gets a power source, throw in a specialized list in the class features so they still get some of their unique spells, badda bing badda boom. Paladins get access to Divine and Paladin tagged spells, Clerics get Divine and Cleric tagged spells. Just feels a lot easier to follow, especially if they organize it well in the books and separate spells out by source first, and then level second.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
But the cow jumped OVER the moon! :p
🤣 Touché
I agree that it would be better if there were a few options to choose from other than just wings (which is also kinda close to what Aasimar get.
Frankly, it’s weird that ardlings weren’t made a lineage of Aasimar, just like 2014 Tieflings were made one of three Tiefling lineages.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
This is really one of the best little looks into the future of DnD that I could have expected. Honestly, the only thing I was disappointed by was seeing that Bonus Actions will be sticking around: really wish they had felt free to crib the 3 Action economy from PF2E and adjust from there, but that's a different topic.

I'm very excited to start seeing some of the monster design that builds around this new paradigm. It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up against some of the better designed 3PP monster books like Tome of Foes or what we've been able to see so far from Flee, Mortals! My main gripe with 5E has always been combat, especially as a 4E baby. Fights are soooo long, and while they were in 4E too, at least they were mechanically interesting. If classes and monsters add some of that zhuzh back in, I'll be a happy camper.

Oh, and spell lists based on power source? Wonderful. Each class gets a power source, throw in a specialized list in the class features so they still get some of their unique spells, badda bing badda boom. Paladins get access to Divine and Paladin tagged spells, Clerics get Divine and Cleric tagged spells. Just feels a lot easier to follow, especially if they organize it well in the books and separate spells out by source first, and then level second.
Stealing the three action thing would be awesome. I hope I remember to suggest that.
 

Ixal

Hero
Sure, that is a fine way to look at it and I have similar tendencies. However, WotC has taken the stance that is more fun to let people play what they want. A PC is an exception version of any particular race, so why not let the Player determine how those exceptional qualities are expressed.

I mean I am all for racial limits (like a human can only get to STR 18, but dragonborn could get to STR 20, etc.), but this concept is probably better for the game as a whole and I can also houserule racial limits (or bonus or penalties)
Again, thats what the attribute array is for.
Want to play a strong and clumsy elf? Dex is the dump stat and Str is the highest. Sure you will still be more dexterous than a clumsy human, but not as good as nearly any elf. To them you will be clumsy.
And you will overpower most elves, be equal to many humans but still struggle against strong orcs.
But even an exceptional elf is still an elf which comes with biological facts which includes trance, darkvision and better dexterity among other things.

In the end it comes down to 2 things.
1. People somehow thinking that different fictional races being different is somehow racist (see @Faolyn's post). Which strangely only seems to be a problem in fantasy, not in scifi. I haven't heard any complains about Vulcans.
2. People refusing to play anything not minmaxed with an 18 in the primary attribute which imo is not something you should cater to. Thats not role playing. No one is preventing them from playing an elf barbarian or orc wizard except their inability to play something not minmaxed.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top