D&D (2024) More People Test One D&D Origins Playtest Than D&D Next

WotC has announced that more people have playtested the first One D&D playtest than the number of people who playtested the entirety of the D&D Next playtest 10 years ago, which led to the release of D&D 5E. The number of people who playtested D&D Next, according to the credits in the 5E Player's Handbook, was over 175,000 people.

In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!

Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My issue isn't that I can't change things up....but that the examples aren't all that good. Like, cultist language should be "language tied to cult" or something, not "abyssal". Or maybe I'm over thinking things.....

Abyssal (Or another suitably cult-y language of your choice).

Honestly, the most obvious type of cult is a demon cult, hence Abyssal. Obviously you can switch it to Primordial for your Elder Eye cult or Deep Speech for your Lolth Cult.

My real issue is that race traits still include cultural/learned things, and I don't want that at all.

Yeah, it's surprising how many remnants are there considering that it was an explicit part of their design goals. I mean, I guess I really can see Dragonborn popping out of the Egg speaking Draconic (If ANYTHING can be done innately, that one seems likely, if totally unnecessary).

Dwarves? Well... I mean, I guess it'd be cool to make dwarves that are NOT connected to the earth as part of their nature. "Gods did it" is definitely not the best excuse, either. Still, I mean, I understand why they find it hard to divorce dwarves from these things. They have been vastly built into their stereotype. Kind of the point, though, innit?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Or just make them more clearly templates, without fully filled out ASI or Language/Tool choices.

Yes, but then that defeats the whole point of them being designed for quick-builds. The WHOLE POINT is to make for less decisions for those who want it. Anyone who wants to make their own choices can swap any element for any other element. Easy.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but then that defeats the whole point of them being designed for quick-builds. The WHOLE POINT is to make for less decisions for those who want it. Anyone who wants to make their own choices can swap any element for any other element. Easy.

Still, seems a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place: so many people seem to view these examples as some sort of assumed default, when they aren't built that way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Still, seems a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place: so many people seem to view these examples as some sort of assumed default, when they aren't built that way.

That part is weird, as it's spelled out right at the beginning. I mean, I may have gotten a little carried away with my tongue-in-cheek version, but it looks like they may have to find a way to make it doubly obvious (tripley obvious?) that you can swap any element out for any other like-element as well as build-your-own. It's not all or nothing.

 

[OB1]

Again, if they move the examples to an appendix in the back, it will help drive home that the default is to build your own. If they want to give an example in the background section, they'd be better off picking one like Soldier and showing it three different ways.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Again, if they move the examples to an appendix in the back, it will help drive home that the default is to build your own. If they want to give an example in the background section, they'd be better off picking one like Soldier and showing it three different ways.

I still disagree with that, myself. I think having the examples there for a quick plug-n-play is an excellent design.

 

[MockingBird]

I still disagree with that, myself. I think having the examples there for a quick plug-n-play is an excellent design.

I agree, it would be annoying not to have them near the chargen rules.

 

[Parmandur]

That part is weird, as it's spelled out right at the beginning. I mean, I may have gotten a little carried away with my tongue-in-cheek version, but it looks like they may have to find a way to make it doubly obvious (tripley obvious?) that you can swap any element out for any other like-element as well as build-your-own. It's not all or nothing.

Mayne the ASI should go elsewhere in character creation, like Class, to keep the mechanical focus of Background on Feats.

 

[Haplo781]

Maybe the solution is to have a list of backgrounds that are pretty bare-bones (just provides a feat and skill proficiencies and tells you to pick the rest yourself), followed by a list that's slightly more detailed (also includes tool proficiencies), and finally a list with everything filled in.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Mayne the ASI should go elsewhere in character creation, like Class, to keep the mechanical focus of Background on Feats.

It honestly makes the most sense in Class, seeing as where your top stats go is near entirely dependent on Class, and not on anything else.