First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

rooneg

Adventurer
An interesting wrinkle here is that this kind of removes the distinction between "rolling with advantage" and "Inspiration."

There are a lot of ways to get characters to roll with advantage. If the designers' goal is to have more advantage in the game, there's ways to address that without bringing Inspiration into the mix. If that is the designers' goal, personally, I'm a little iffy on it. I don't think that what my D&D game has been missing is "more rolls with advantage." We're pretty good on that, honestly.

Inspiration, however, is a horse of a slightly different color. That mechanic - the DM hands out a player-activated Advantage for good RP - is under-utilized and potentially cool. The reason it's cool, IMO, is because it encourages good RP. If the designers want more good RP, then encouraging Inspiration more is a good idea, and I am on board that train, but these mechanics don't really work toward that goal. Being a human or rolling a 20 aren't things that are related to interesting character or story moments. They're parts of your build or out of your control, not things you decide to do during play to have an effect.
I think this is pretty clearly the developers saying "Okay, the game was meant to operate with a fair amount of Inspiration floating around, but none of the DMs are actually giving it out at anywhere near the rate we anticipated, what else can we spend that inspiration on?" Thus you get it answering the question of "Hey, what special thing can we give to Humans once 'you get a feat' is less special because everyone's getting that?"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MarkB

Legend
Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.

There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.
It doesn't just overlap with advantage, it is advantage. Which makes the current version particularly of note to rogues, since in compensation for not doubling their sneak attack damage on a crit, they do instead get a guaranteed sneak attack next turn.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
Quite right. It's particularly an issue because of having to use Inspiration beforehand, which as you say, overlaps hard with Advantage, and doesn't feel very rewarding or exciting.

There are a million things they could let you buy with Inspiration that would be more interesting. Hell, being Take 10 with Inspiration would be amazing.

"I am Inspired. I am ELATED. I CAN DO GREAT THINGS! I CAN REACH THE SKY!!!!!! I CAN...

take 10 ensuring an averageish result."

I agree with your general point, not your particular example.
 

"I am Inspired. I am ELATED. I CAN DO GREAT THINGS! I CAN REACH THE SKY!!!!!! I CAN...

take 10 ensuring an averageish result."

I agree with your general point, not your particular example.
The problem with Advantage being supposed to be a great thing is that it's reasonably likely you'll get two bad rolls, which feels pretty bad. The great thing about take 10 is you can guarantee what you're getting.
 

With this rule changes, I can't stop but think about 3 to 3.5
1661198518003.png
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
I'm not happy. Inspiration is a thing that I set out intending to include when running games, but almost always neglect to actually award because I don't think of it in the moment. And as a player I tend to hold onto it until I forget I have it, because I don't know when more will be incoming.

This new rule may be less flavoursome, but it solves both of those issues.
Totally with you on forgetting about it. Really easy to do, both as a player and as a DM.

And I think this is the rub for the playtest: why do you want to use Inspiration? What's missing from your games that this would add? Do you want more human rogues or to reward characters with Extra Attack?
 

OB1

Jedi Master
It doesn't just overlap with advantage, it is advantage. Which makes the current version particularly of note to rogues, since in compensation for not doubling their sneak attack damage on a crit, they do instead get a guaranteed sneak attack next turn.
This happened on Saturday in my group when we decided to playtest the new rule in our first Spelljammer session. The Rogue LOVED it.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
That's not a counter point. Just because it's much harder(or impossible) to build a 3.5 wizard in 4e, doesn't mean 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0. It just wasn't as bad as 4e. That's like saying a 747 is backwards compatible with a WWI fighter, because it's even less compatible with a zoo.

No, because Zoos aren't a type of plane.

4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and locations like a zoo.


And while I acknowledge it could require a degree of work to convert from 3.0 to 3.5.... people did it. It was imminently possible.

No one tried converting from 3.5 to 4e, because it was impossible. It could not be done. They were incompatible.


No. I equate having to to craptons of work on something that just plain doesn't work right due to drastic mechanics changes as meaning it's not backwards compatible. Again, not having the same level of changes as 4e does not make 3.5 backwards compatible with 3e.

Even if you can claim that converting between 3.0 and 3.5 was so difficult that it made backwards compatbility impossible.... you literally cannot make the same claim for OD&D. Converting between them isn't difficult, and there are only very corner case things that cannot be easily handled.

Again "backwards compatible" doesn't mean "identical".
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, because Zoos aren't a type of plane.
Exactly. 4e is not an edition of 3e. It's the Zoo to the planes of 3e and 3.5. You've chosen something completely different, but if you like, you're saying that the the jumbo jet(3e) is backwards compatible with the WWI fighter(3.5), because it's even less compatible with a car(4e). Then they are all vehicles(RPGs).
And while I acknowledge it could require a degree of work to convert from 3.0 to 3.5.... people did it. It was imminently possible.
It's also possible to kludge 3e and 4e together. It would just take more work. Possibility =/= compatibility.
No one tried converting from 3.5 to 4e, because it was impossible.
Why do you think it's impossible? I could convert a 3e character to 4e. It would have the same level, class, stats, items, etc. The powers would be different, but it would still be the character converted.
Again "backwards compatible" doesn't mean "identical".
I'm not claiming it is. Backwards compatibility = easy, though. If it's hard and/or takes a lot of work, it's not backwards compatible.
 



cbwjm

Legend
Sniff test for edition change: when the new rules come out, if I’m using those, will I still say I’m playing 5e DnD?

Looks like no, so I’ll think of it as a new edition.

Incidentally, I get the impression that a number of people will stick with 5e, but interestingly it seems most if those won’t use Tasha’s optional rules except for rangers and maybe some subclasses.
I will, I still use 3e to encompass 3e/3.5. I expect I'll still use 5e to cover the start of 5e and this revision.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Exactly. 4e is not an edition of 3e. It's the Zoo to the planes of 3e and 3.5. You've chosen something completely different, but if you like, you're saying that the the jumbo jet(3e) is backwards compatible with the WWI fighter(3.5), because it's even less compatible with a car(4e). Then they are all vehicles(RPGs).

4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and cars.


It's also possible to kludge 3e and 4e together. It would just take more work. Possibility =/= compatibility.


Why do you think it's impossible? I could convert a 3e character to 4e. It would have the same level, class, stats, items, etc. The powers would be different, but it would still be the character converted.

No, actually it isn't. The fundamental math and expectations are incompatible.

Your 4e wizard could have the same level, but 4e was a core 30 level game, where 3E was a core 20 level game with splat expansion. Being called a wizard in 4e meant fundamentally different things, for example. a 4e wizard didn't make scrolls and have a familiar, those were core to 3e wizards. Your stats were WILDLY different. They looked the same, but they were applied in completely different ways with completely different outcomes. For 4e having a high dexterity for a wizard was fundamentally worthless, while having a high wisdom OR charisma was far more useful. None of the items worked the same way, they may share a name if you are talking the high level stuff, but sharing a name does not the same thing make.


I'm not claiming it is. Backwards compatibility = easy, though. If it's hard and/or takes a lot of work, it's not backwards compatible.

Backwards compatibility does not mean easy. If it meant easy, then you wouldn't need to buy adapters for technology.
 

They really, really didn't want you to say "I'm playing 5e" in the first place. They wanted (and still want) you to say that you're "playing Dungeons & Dragons".
Yeah, and the thing is, we will, but we'll mean a specific edition, usually the current one, but sometimes we'll need to specify, and this WotC thing where they're trying to deny anyone the ability to specify is just pissing in the wind, frankly. It's like, unless WotC make their own name for 1D&D that actually sticks and isn't dumb (so not 1D&D), it's going to be called 6E in the longer-term. Doesn't matter if that's wrong or whatever, like even if 5.5E was "more accurate", because WotC won't popularize it, whatever is most simple and distinguishes it most obviously will stick, and that, in say, four years, will almost certainly be 6E (again, even if that's "wrong").

The only way that doesn't happen is if basically every playtest rejects most of the changes, which I very much doubt.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
4e was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.0 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast. 3.5 was an edition of the Tabletop Role-playing Game Dungeons and Dragons published by Wizards of the Coast.

These are HIGHLY comparable, unlike planes and cars.
Planes and cars have engines, wheels, use fuel, etc. They are just as comparable as two editions of D&D.
No, actually it isn't. The fundamental math and expectations are incompatible.

Your 4e wizard could have the same level, but 4e was a core 30 level game, where 3E was a core 20 level game with splat expansion. Being called a wizard in 4e meant fundamentally different things, for example. a 4e wizard didn't make scrolls and have a familiar, those were core to 3e wizards. Your stats were WILDLY different. They looked the same, but they were applied in completely different ways with completely different outcomes. For 4e having a high dexterity for a wizard was fundamentally worthless, while having a high wisdom OR charisma was far more useful. None of the items worked the same way, they may share a name if you are talking the high level stuff, but sharing a name does not the same thing make.
Much like planes and cars.
Backwards compatibility does not mean easy. If it meant easy, then you wouldn't need to buy adapters for technology.
Yes it does. Otherwise you are putting a jet engine and wings on a car to get it to fly.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Yeah, and the thing is, we will, but we'll mean a specific edition, usually the current one, but sometimes we'll need to specify, and this WotC thing where they're trying to deny anyone the ability to specify is just pissing in the wind, frankly. It's like, unless WotC make their own name for 1D&D that actually sticks and isn't dumb (so not 1D&D), it's going to be called 6E in the longer-term. Doesn't matter if that's wrong or whatever, like even if 5.5E was "more accurate", because WotC won't popularize it, whatever is most simple and distinguishes it most obviously will stick, and that, in say, four years, will almost certainly be 6E (again, even if that's "wrong").

The only way that doesn't happen is if basically every playtest rejects most of the changes, which I very much doubt.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't implying that I thought it was sensible. I'm pretty sure "One D&D" is the name of the playtest (well, the name of the initiative, really) and the books will be called "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition" (So we can call it 50th, if we need to).
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Oh, I agree. I wasn't implying that I thought it was sensible. I'm pretty sure "One D&D" is the name of the playtest (well, the name of the initiative, really) and the books will be called "D&D 50th Anniversary Edition" (So we can call it 50th, if we need to).

Yep. Just like the last big playtest was D&D Next. But no one still says that we are playing D&D Next.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah, someone in marketing has told them to never say the word “edition” again.
Lolol it’s funny to me how folks refuse to acknowledge that the designers themselves agree with these decisions and may well be the starting point of them.

Like…you don’t think the 4e edition wars changed how the people who make D&D view the idea of editions?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Like…you don’t think the 4e edition wars changed how the people who make D&D view the idea of editions?
Do you think there won't be editions wars out there just because they'll call it One D&D or whatever they decide to call 6e when it comes out? People argue because of the changes, not because they're labeled editions.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top