D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[EzekielRaiden]

Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically, a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.

.... seriously?

Because it uses a new font or layout, it is a totally new version of the game and completely distinct from "original" 4e. That is the line you're drawing here.

Okay. I think your definition is incredibly unproductive and outright misleading in the context of D&D (and tabletop gaming more generally.)

"Edition" in a TTRPG context very much means major alterations to the rules. Not just supplementary material that can also be used to play. By that definition, 3.5e had... what, a dozen editions, what with all the supplements that added new classes or reprinted old ones?

 

[Cadence]

Any version of game rules that uses a different type set is, really technically, a new Edition. Essentials is as much a new edition of D&D as Call of Cthulu 7E is a new Edition of that game.

I still feel bad for folks who had to get the later 1e DMG edition with the different cover. (MM and PHB dodn't bother me so much).

 

[Parmandur]

.... seriously?

Because it uses a new font or layout, it is a totally new version of the game and completely distinct from "original" 4e. That is the line you're drawing here.

Okay. I think your definition is incredibly unproductive and outright misleading in the context of D&D (and tabletop gaming more generally.)

"Edition" in a TTRPG context very much means major alterations to the rules. Not just supplementary material that can also be used to play. By that definition, 3.5e had... what, a dozen editions, what with all the supplements that added new classes or reprinted old ones?

Yes, in the world.of books, a new type set is what defines an Edition, as opposed to a printing which uses the same type setting with errata. D&D's historical use of the term is idiosyncratic and internally inconsistent, except insofsr as being marketing horse manure everybtime. So "OneD&D" fits in the tradition that way.

 

[FireLance]

That doesn’t follow. In two normal distributions with the same standard deviation, the one with the higher mean doesn’t necessarily contain the single highest value.

In practice, given the very small range of possible values of 3d6, it’s probably true. But you might easily generate 10 random characters of both races and find that the smartest one is a halfling.

And, of course, PCs are atypical.

If we are talking about a random sample of 10 from each race, you are correct that the smartest halfling in that sample may be smarter than the smartest gnome in that sample. However, as the sample size approaches the population size, the chance of that happening approaches zero. Especially if, as you have pointed out, it is not actually a normal distribution but 3d6.

That said, I disagree that PCs are atypical since their ability scores still fall within the normal range for their race. It "costs" the player the same to have a 17 Int halfling as it does to have a 17 Int gnome. However, if racial ability scores are normally distributed with the average (mean) Int scores for gnomes 2 points higher than the average Int scores for halflings, only 0.5% of halflings are smarter than the Int 17 halfling PC, whereas 4.6% of gnomes are smarter than the Int 17 gnome PC.

 

[edosan]

So after reading the document, it feels a little weird…

One of my big problems about character creation in 5e is it’s so janky and all over the place. I like that your character is a combination of race/lineage, background, and class but it’s so clunky to explain to newbies sometimes. It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?) and I kind of see what they were trying to do with moving stat bonuses from race to background it would have been easier to just say “roll 4d6, drop one, do it six times, arrange your stats, then add two point to one stat and one point to another.”

I think some sort of streamlined life path system - not binding some choices to race/class/background at all - might have been a better choice.

I was also hoping they’d do more with inspiration - something I’ve always thought was a great concept poorly codified - besides “give everyone a inspiration point when they crit.” I don’t see that fixing the problem of people hoarding their inspiration and then forgetting they have it. (What they should do is give DM Scotty a pile of money to use his Luck Dice concept, that would be interesting)

 

[overgeeked]

D&D's historical use of the term is idiosyncratic and internally inconsistent, except insofsr as being marketing horse manure everybtime. So "OneD&D" fits in the tradition that way.

It is a really weird use of "edition" and it's surprising it's caught on (mostly) with the entire RPG industry. But then D&D has almost always been the vast majority of the RPG industry, though never more so than now.

Let's see. There's OD&D 1974. No thief and Chainmail as the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Greyhawk which added the thief and the combat system. There's OD&D 1975 w/Blackmoor, which added the monk and assassin and rules for underwater. So that's three "editions" before we've even completed the initial line of books for the game. AD&D before and after Unearthed Arcana. AD&D2E before and after the Player's Options. Etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That said, I disagree that PCs are atypical

Well, they are. Look at the stats for any NPC that resembles a PC (Thug, Assassin, etc.). Obviously they are created using alternate, and inferior, rules.

One simply cannot extrapolate from PC chargen to logically reach any statistical conclusions about races.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, they are. Look at the stats for any NPC that resembles a PC (Thug, Assassin, etc.). Obviously they are created using alternate, and inferior, rules.

One simply cannot extrapolate from PC chargen to logically reach any statistical conclusions about races.

I was looking through The Spelljammer books and noticed several (but not all) of the Astral Elf NPCs lack Starlight Step; one of the defining traits of Astral Elves!

It's a continued trend I've noticed in 5e that started with some pebbles as far back as Volo and is a full-on avalanche now: PC stats and NPC stats are not in concert with each other. There is nothing you can extrapolate from the word "goblin" or "elf" or "wizard" and assume it's similar to what a PC with the same keywords are. PCs are from Mars, NPCs from Venus, and an elf wizard NPC will not necessarily share anything in common with an elf wizard PC except maybe pointy ears.

 

[Haplo781]

So after reading the document, it feels a little weird…

One of my big problems about character creation in 5e is it’s so janky and all over the place. I like that your character is a combination of race/lineage, background, and class but it’s so clunky to explain to newbies sometimes. It is streamlined but a lot of their choices feel really arbitrary (All guards know Dwarvish? All pilgrims can play a musical instrument?)

Those are sample backgrounds and the default is custom. You can freely customize the sample backgrounds as well.

I was also hoping they’d do more with inspiration - something I’ve always thought was a great concept poorly codified - besides “give everyone a inspiration point when they crit.” I don’t see that fixing the problem of people hoarding their inspiration and then forgetting they have it. (What they should do is give DM Scotty a pile of money to use his Luck Dice concept, that would be interesting)

We haven't seen the classes yet. They may have further mechanics for interacting with inspiration.

 

[Ancalagon]

I’m not saying that’s what languages are for in real life. I’m saying that’s the main gameplay utility of languages in D&D.

If we are going to change how D&D handles races due to echoes of real world racism within it...