First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.
Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars. That was the appearance anyway. If you had another meaning, I missed it. :)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars. That was the appearance anyway. If you had another meaning, I missed it. :)
My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.
You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.

Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth. :)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.
Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition.
Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth. :)
It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war.

Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition.
I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D. The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.
It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war.

Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.
That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did. The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D. The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.
Okay? You seem to be aggressively missing the point.
That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did. The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.
I didn’t claim that it did, nor that it would. 🤷‍♂️

Again, you are replying to things I haven’t said.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You’re not wrong, but we’ve been running on the same engine since 3.0: the d20 engine. Yes, 4e made some big changes and so did 5e; the 1D&D changes will probably be less significant than either of those. But at its core we’re still running on the same mechanical underpinning we have been since WotC got a hold of the IP.
I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine?

I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine?

I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.
Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.
I know what the d20 system is. Very obviously. That isn’t what you said, first of all. You referred simply to the d20 resolution mechanic. Ie, roll d20 add mods compare to target number.

4e and 5e are not the same engine as the d20 system, however, so even if you meant the d20 system as a whole, it doesn’t work.

Things like unified bonus progression, advantage, and bounded accuracy, are enough to make them different “rules engines”.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I know what the d20 system is. Very obviously. That isn’t what you said, first of all. You referred simply to the d20 resolution mechanic. Ie, roll d20 add mods compare to target number.
Well I said “the d20 engine.” I assumed it would be clear from context that I meant the system rather than just the resolution mechanic, but I guess I should have specified.
4e and 5e are not the same engine as the d20 system, however, so even if you meant the d20 system as a whole, it doesn’t work.

Things like unified bonus progression, advantage, and bounded accuracy, are enough to make them different “rules engines”.
🤷‍♀️ Each edition has made changes to the system, yes, but personally I still see them as fundamentally running on the same engine. But whatever, if you don’t like that terminology, I’m not going to argue it with you.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Planes and cars have engines, wheels, use fuel, etc. They are just as comparable as two editions of D&D.

No they are not

Much like planes and cars.

They are not comparable. Heck, just to begin with, they aren't made by the same people. Your car mechanic cannot work on a military fighter jet.

Yes it does. Otherwise you are putting a jet engine and wings on a car to get it to fly.

No, backwards compatible doesn't mean that it is easy and requires no work.
 

CubicsRube

Hero
Supporter
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.
In addition to this, it creates an interesting momentum dynamic. If you use inspiration to get advantage, you have increased chances of rolling another 20, which gives you more inspiration, etc
 



Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?

I was going to say that an essential aspect of being a grognard is an unshakeable belief that forum credibility is proportional to number of years gaming, and that if you slip in that reference about meeting Gary in 1978 everybody will suddenly decide that your opinion on ASIs or orc culture or burning trolls must be the correct one after all.

But I think I missed my chance a number of pages ago.

That might not even have been this thread, now that I think about it.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
I see that this thread is falling into a pit of pedantry. Does anyone have anything left so say regarding 1D&D Character Origins anymore, or is it all talked out?

We could discuss some of the feats, but I think there are threads I haven't caught up on doing that. I'm trying to make a feat document that makes more 1st level feats from other sources, but figuring the balance on the existing 1st level feats is a bit tricky. Especially since I've buffed some of those feats before.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
We could discuss some of the feats, but I think there are threads I haven't caught up on doing that. I'm trying to make a feat document that makes more 1st level feats from other sources, but figuring the balance on the existing 1st level feats is a bit tricky. Especially since I've buffed some of those feats before.
There's a thread on the feats somewhere. I mean, there's a thread on just about every aspect of the OneD&D playtest UA (plus a bunch of speculation ones). It's possible that this one, being the General Discussion Thread, really HAS come to its end. I dunno. I just think we could discuss something more interesting than a narrow definition of what the D20 System is (or was) or what's more compatible: D&D Editions, or planes, cars, and zoos.

Not to single anyone out! ;-P (Remember: I love you all, you weird group of lovable misfits!)
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Due tomorrow right? Filled out my survey and left most blank (well no-opinion) because I didn't actually playtest them in a game setting or didn't care.

Races - Said I loved Ardling - except that wings for flying seemed odd, and the flying mechanic seemed poorly designed. (What about a floating cloud or a rainbow bridge? Why do you fall if you have more uses available? Why is it same speed going up or down or horizontal?)

Backgrounds -
  • Said I thought they needed to hit harder that the standard was build your own background (and maybe put in an option or two inside some of the sample ones to make that clear).
  • Said they missed some real opportunities to avoid stereotypes and to play against type by the language choices for gladiator and sage.
  • And said I'd prefer the ASI examples to be assignable to other things too in the background (strong because of family story of giant blood, strong because trained towards class and not just background, etc...).
Rules - Said I really hated the auto-success on a 20 for a DC of up to 30. And I would either clarify that the DM can just not a role if they thought the untrained PC couldn't do the really hard thing, or should lower that DC where it happens. Said I didn't like the auto-fail, but not as much since at least with advantage it wouldn't happen often.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top