D&D (2024) OneD&D Character Origins summary

[edosan]

But then just turn all damage cantrips into saves for the targets, like Sacred Flame. It sucks to roll a 20 and get nothing special. Anticlimax.

In that vein, I’d like to see all spells require an attack roll so they can have critical hits and fails but maybe that’s just me.

 

[Remathilis]

Where are you getting this fourth language...? I don't see it. Everyone gets Common. Dragonborn get Draconic. Background gives a language. That's three. Where is the fourth?

Edit: Somehow I thought "UA" meant the pre-Fizban, not the current playtest, so that's why I was confused. Yes, the breath is slightly better for average output. But you cannot tell me a few points of average damage are better than, y'know, having actual racial features and not just garbage.

After choosing a Race and a Background, you choose a language that your character knows, in addition to the Common tongue and whatever
language you gained from the Background you chose. (pg 2)

Draconic Language. You instinctively know the language of dragons. You can therefore speak, read, and write Draconic. (Pg 3)

So a Dragonborn knows Common (default) + 1 free choice + 1 background + Draconic as a racial trait. Four languages.

So yes, they traded out darkvision and draconic language for the three racial traits that chromatic/gem/metallic get. I guess its have a generic dragonborn alongside the "heavier influenced" options in Fizban. Both are straight upgrade over the PHB one, that's for certain.

 

[Raith5]

Not sure. I kinda like that spells can't crit as that makes martial weapon users more competitive as damage dealers.

Surely there are more interesting ways to do that - especially via feats or maneuvers. I think taking away crits of attack spells takes away the fun of crits for casters.

I also think it is weird that martial PCs are the only people in a game world that get critical hits - I am not sure that it makes sense - at the very least it seems to be a really big change compared to the past history of D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

Surely there are more interesting ways to do that - especially via feats or maneuvers. I think taking away crits of attack spells takes away the fun of crits for casters.

I also think it is weird that martial PCs are the only people in a game world that get critical hits - I am not sure that it makes sense - at the very least it seems to be a really big change compared to the past history of D&D.

In this world that you are imagining that "makes sense," does it make sense that spells with saves (e.g., Fireball) can't crit either?

 

[Raith5]

In this world that you are imagining that "makes sense," does it make sense that spells with saves (e.g., Fireball) can't crit either?

I guess by make sense I mean just having a consistent system where if you roll to attack and roll a 20 then extra damage is applied because you have hit the target in a weak spot. An arrow or a fire bolt in the eye should do extra damage. I still think you can and should have class, racial, monster abilities that can do extra. I should note that I do have problems with doubling smite and sneak damage dice - I have seen this to be very swingy. (Personally I would like all spells to roll to hit - but that is a change that does not seem to have a lot of support!).

 

[FireLance]

So what is WoTC's excuse for nerfing the Dragonborn's Breath Weapon back to the PHB version? curious

It makes me wonder whether WotC is going to re-word Extra Attack to be something like: you gain one (or two, or three) extra Action(s) per turn that can only be used to take the Attack action. On the one hand, it makes it more flexible for part casters like paladins, rangers and eldritch knights to cast a spell and make one attack in the same round. On the other hand, it reduces the value of Action Surge, unless it is also re-worded to: when you take the Attack action, you can make a number of additional attacks equal to half your proficiency bonus.

 

[MarkB]

But then just turn all damage cantrips into saves for the targets, like Sacred Flame. It sucks to roll a 20 and get nothing special. Anticlimax.

Rolling a 20 gets you Inspiration. I think that needs to be kept in mind more when considering the new rules on critical hits.

 

[Corinnguard]

It makes me wonder whether WotC is going to re-word Extra Attack to be something like: you gain one (or two, or three) extra Action(s) per turn that can only be used to take the Attack action. On the one hand, it makes it more flexible for part casters like paladins, rangers and eldritch knights to cast a spell and make one attack in the same round. On the other hand, it reduces the value of Action Surge, unless it is also re-worded to: when you take the Attack action, you can make a number of additional attacks equal to half your proficiency bonus.

It could be worse. They could borrow Pathfinder 2nd edition 3 Action Economy.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Let's not gloss over the changes to grapple either!
1) A target being grappled now has disadvantage to hit any target other than the one grappling them.
2) The grappler is Slowed, which means other creatures have advantage to hit THEM.
3) Grapple is now an Unarmed Attack roll with a static DC that creatures can roll against at the end of each of their turns (as a Str or Dex SAVE). It is also no longer an opposed roll but is now against AC!

Point 3 by itself has a number of implications:
A) Abilities/spells/feats that boost Athletics or Acrobatics will no long effect grapple (goodbye Rogue/Bard expertise grapplers)
B) Feats like Resilient and (arguably) Shield Master will now help against being Grappled or to Grapple someone, assuming they make the cut. Same with spells like Bless or Superiority Dice.
C) Some martial classes like Paladin are going to be worse at grappling or avoiding being grappled due to it now being a STR/DEX save due to not having proficiency in either of those two saves.

Big implications here.

 

[Cheah18]

I understand your reasoning here but I fundamentally disagree and I'm going to use the T-word. Trap Feat. Sorry. That's what it is - "Are you too simple for mathematics? Do you not understand planning a character? Are you terrible at assessing the real game value of stuff? Do you want slightly complicate your character for a gain so small it's hard to even measure? If so here's a Feat for you!"

It's so bad that it's a goddamn Trap Feat.

And it's up against feats like a BETTER version of Magic Initiate, Lucky, Alert, Skilled. Those are also first-level Feats. All but Magic Initiate make sense for the same kinds of PC as Savage Attacker. It's awful. Even Toughness would be a better use of your L1 Feat.

Like, if we score L1 Feats from 1-5 as you suggest, it is absolutely not a 3.5/5 Feat, because that means pretty much every single other L1 Feat has to be a 4, 4.5 or 5 lol.

I believe everyone knows the reasons listed by the person to whom you are replying, but are really missing a big factor here. I know all the maths about it and I understand it is not a powerful feat.

The thing is, this is level-1 cha-gen. So much goes into building a character with a life and personality and feel and vibe that you want. This is being forgotten when comparing SA to these other Level 1 feat options. These feats are clearly, like in other TTRPG games, filling the role of interesting, nuancing tricks and 'thangs' that define a character and impact the RP as well as adding effects.

SA was/is bad mathematically, but for its RP purposes its an okay idea. A character who every turn is so 'savage' that they have the possibility of inflicting more damage than someone else might, or that they flat out are stronger, or however the player wants to frame it, is pretty damn kewl. But, when put alongside other damage feats as mentioned, or an ASI, and given that the sparse opportunities for feats was so precious, it felt PRETTY DAMN BAD. The little RP 'thang' was just an absolute fiasco of a purchase for that value.

Now, every character is getting a level one feat. None of these feats are intended to be super powerful, and they are formulated with the character expression in mind. They aren't meant to be precious purchases, but a natural component of the cha-gen - how your character is and came to be, as well as what their output is.

I agree that the other feats are clearly better, but look: I am making a strongman gladiator with an anger problem who has had some fights in the arena, and has been bought by a nobleman and is now on a quest given to him. I want the brutality of his attacks to shine through, and to be above the other level-1s. What should I take - Healer? Magic Initiate? Hell no. Tough, arguably, but that's defensive, and maybe that's not what I'm going for. You comparing them to SA isn't appropriate here. On the contrary, me coming to the table hearing the 'what do you look like?', and telling my party about my roman gladiator muscles and helmet, all the while knowing I'm gonna be re-rolling an attack every turn forever? For simply selecting an option during part of the innate gen process from some other cool options? I'm PRETTY DAMN HAPPY with that.
It's not right to compare it to the other options given that the context and investment to acquire them has been reframed so much. The only trap I see is thinking the word 'feat' means the same thing as it used to.