Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
I have almost the complete opposite opinion, I place 3.5 below both 4e and 5e. With 4e, from a design standpoint, being the high water mark.
That is why D&D design is so difficult, everyone likes different things
Pulse check on 1D&D excitement level
- Thread starter OB1
- Start date
That is why D&D design is so difficult, everyone likes different things
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Perhaps I’m a grognard and don’t know it, but how is 5e catering to grognards? I see a lot of 3e and 4e and some 1e in there. Not seeing how it specifically caters to one of those.
When 5e was in playtest, DNDNext used a high threshold to stay in. Since tis was before 5e even came out, this made anything the fans of older editions didn't like not reach the threshold to remain in the game skeleton. Some of the newer ideas and concepts where dropped completely, patch on later, or explored in later books to be patched on then. An if you look at most of the new ideas that made into 5e, most are wonkily unbalanced.
5e was never designed for new players. It was designed to pull in old players. That's why there was no stress for DM support. It was designed for people who already knew how to DM or would just run printed adventures straight up.
OneD&D is keeping that skeleton designed around grognards. It's why the Wildshape debate is happening (Copying 3e's bad wildshape and made it the core of the druid). It's why Aardlings aren't making it in (never explored other types of cosmology). It's why there will be very likely be chaos when the Warrior packet releases.
The circles aren't fitting into the squares. So the circle fans are not excited about what they see. And the square and rectangle fans already have their games.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I'm at the meh phase. I think there are some good changes (like the feats and a few of the back-end mechanics), but there's also some bad changes (like druids, sneak attack, the execution of the species) and a plethora of really unnecessary changes (like the spell lists, grapple, etc.).
We'll see what happens with fighters and monks, though.
We'll see what happens with fighters and monks, though.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
At this point... very low.
I played 5E off an on for a few years. Found it fun to GM, but a little simple to play - I like more choices for character. I absoluty love Level Up / A5E - and after getting those book, moved to that as my core "D&D alike*" game (from Pathfinder 1st ed). So really I'll be looking at OneD&D the same way I look at 5E now a sourcebook I can steal stuff from for my A5E game. (I'm also looking at Black Flag and any other D&D5E OGL clones that seem to be on their way the exact same way.
I won't be playing it as it's own game.
* These are games from the D&D family somewhere. The wife and I (pretty much no group right now) tend to have 2 systems we play - Our primary game, which is usually a Universal/Generic RPG (was HERO for 25 years, now Cypher System) and one D&D family game (we both started there and there is nostalgia there... and usually very mechanically different than our primary game.
I played 5E off an on for a few years. Found it fun to GM, but a little simple to play - I like more choices for character. I absoluty love Level Up / A5E - and after getting those book, moved to that as my core "D&D alike*" game (from Pathfinder 1st ed). So really I'll be looking at OneD&D the same way I look at 5E now a sourcebook I can steal stuff from for my A5E game. (I'm also looking at Black Flag and any other D&D5E OGL clones that seem to be on their way the exact same way.
I won't be playing it as it's own game.
* These are games from the D&D family somewhere. The wife and I (pretty much no group right now) tend to have 2 systems we play - Our primary game, which is usually a Universal/Generic RPG (was HERO for 25 years, now Cypher System) and one D&D family game (we both started there and there is nostalgia there... and usually very mechanically different than our primary game.
Lakesidefantasy
Hero
I voted high. I liked the way some of the playtest is going.
But I'm still not going to purchase it.
But I'm still not going to purchase it.
Fallen star
Explorer
What an odd dichotomy.
Older D&D was about the challenge, and you as a player experiencing the story. The character was just a conduit between player and adventure.
New D&D (3rd ed forward) is about expressing your self though your character, hence tons of options that have to be equal in power. The character is the toy.
By making characters. bland and standardized, WotC is appeasing neither group.
Yeah your race and subclass are different coats of paint, different ornaments, but under the hood the game feels the same no matter what character you play.
This is the biggest problem in 5e, and the playtest shows they are leaning into it.
Older D&D was about the challenge, and you as a player experiencing the story. The character was just a conduit between player and adventure.
New D&D (3rd ed forward) is about expressing your self though your character, hence tons of options that have to be equal in power. The character is the toy.
By making characters. bland and standardized, WotC is appeasing neither group.
Yeah your race and subclass are different coats of paint, different ornaments, but under the hood the game feels the same no matter what character you play.
This is the biggest problem in 5e, and the playtest shows they are leaning into it.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Ok, thank you for explaining. I understand what you are saying and can now confidently say I disagree with you!
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Just an FYI, the latest packet has returned grapple back to the 2014 rules IIRC.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
No, it has not.
It is the perfect hybrid.
Still a variation of unarmed attack, so it can be used on an opportunity attack.
Buz instead of targetting AC it forces a save vs a fixed DC, not against a skill check that can be taken out of sensible bounds...
I also disagree that grapple was an unneeded change. I always thought being able to grab as an opportunjty attack and using saving throws instead of skills made much more sense (and monster grabs already worked that way).
Shardstone
Hero
I don't know, it really feels to me like people are being a bit too hard on aspects of 1D&D.
Some things like the grapple changes, the attack changes, etc, smooth out the game which better enables the creation of dynamic auxiliary mechanics. If you guys want more subsystems in the future, then the base game needs to be tweaked so that those subsystems can be implemented. As D&D is right now, its very hard to bolt new ideas onto the system new to the math and construction of the various systems at play. The streamlining of things enables future complexity for less buy-in and easier balancing.
I think a lot of people are hyper-focusing on the lack of sweeping changes and not looking at the implications of these changes. Making class chasis a little bit simpler allows you to get more wild in the future with subclasses, feats, and other ideas like racial or generic subclasses or subclass replacements. Likewise, by cutting down on the features each level, the "mental space" afforded to additional features bolted on in the future is increased, which means you can better remix these classes to be what you want them to be.
In other words, all the 1D&D changes so far 100% make it easier to design for the game. That's the big point here -- make the game a little simpler for new people but a lot simpler for DMs and designers to trick out and better make your "Dungeons and Dragons."
TBH I feel like no one is going to really believe what I'm saying until 3 years from now when the limits of the streamlined system are better revealed, but I firmly think 1D&D is a huge progression in every way from 5E as a game.
Some things like the grapple changes, the attack changes, etc, smooth out the game which better enables the creation of dynamic auxiliary mechanics. If you guys want more subsystems in the future, then the base game needs to be tweaked so that those subsystems can be implemented. As D&D is right now, its very hard to bolt new ideas onto the system new to the math and construction of the various systems at play. The streamlining of things enables future complexity for less buy-in and easier balancing.
I think a lot of people are hyper-focusing on the lack of sweeping changes and not looking at the implications of these changes. Making class chasis a little bit simpler allows you to get more wild in the future with subclasses, feats, and other ideas like racial or generic subclasses or subclass replacements. Likewise, by cutting down on the features each level, the "mental space" afforded to additional features bolted on in the future is increased, which means you can better remix these classes to be what you want them to be.
In other words, all the 1D&D changes so far 100% make it easier to design for the game. That's the big point here -- make the game a little simpler for new people but a lot simpler for DMs and designers to trick out and better make your "Dungeons and Dragons."
TBH I feel like no one is going to really believe what I'm saying until 3 years from now when the limits of the streamlined system are better revealed, but I firmly think 1D&D is a huge progression in every way from 5E as a game.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
/raiseshand
Back in the 80's and 90's I was into options, and studying rulebooks, and system mastery. (Rolemaster!)
I've realized I don't need complex rules and tons of options to have a blast and tell a great story, and sometimes (oftentimes) complexity feels like it gets in the way. And certainly it makes it harder to bring new people into the hobby.
Now, what I do appreciate is "simple rules with complex implications". That is, rules that are easily understood, but lead to complex (as in, hard to optimize) decision-making. An example would be contrast D&D armor rules, in which there are a bunch of different choices that might confuse a beginner, but really your best choice is in almost all cases just the highest AC you can acquire (based on your proficiencies, and what you can afford). That's "complex rules with shallow implications." Contrast that with a system in which there are just a few (maybe 3-5) armor types, and anybody can use any kind, and you even get to pick what you want when you create your character, but there are clear trade-offs between protection and encumbrance. Which also...if implemented well...means there are no wrong choices. I vastly prefer that sort of design.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Agreed. What a bizarre theory.
Lakesidefantasy
Hero
Hi. I came to fifth edition from Pathfinder 2.
I had a choice to make back in 2016, either continue with Pathfinder 2, which seemed to be doubling down on complexity (particularly when it comes to character customization) or fifth edition which seemed to be the fourth edition I was expecting but didn't get back in 2008.
Clint_L
Hero
I don't think the point of OneD&D is to ratchet up the excitement level for a new edition like in the old days, because this isn't being designed as a new edition like the old days.
From a business stand point, the old model kind of sucked because it trapped the game in extreme boom or bust cycles. The old editions model was done in response to problems. In the mid-80s TSR almost went bankrupt and 2e was needed to drive new book sales. 3e was needed to help the game recover after TSR finally did collapse. 4e was in response to WotC thinking they could greatly expand D&D's base by appealing to MMORPG players, at the height of World of Warcraft, which was perceived as an near-existential threat. 5e was in response to that turning out to be a bad idea. In other words, the old editions model was inherently reactive.
From WotC's perspective, they now have the most popular version of the game ever, by far, and so they are going to stick with it and keep it evergreen by tweaking as needed. This time, they are not reacting to an existential problem, but being proactive, from a place of strength. So the idea isn't to push out a new edition where everyone either replaces all their books or quits, it's to make updates that cause minimal disruption to a very healthy player base while continuing to attract new players. It's to shift from boom/bust to managed growth. So there isn't intended to be a huge "boom" of excitement for OneD&D because, as they keep explicitly stating, they see this as 5e, continued, and with the word "edition" forever removed.
From a business stand point, the old model kind of sucked because it trapped the game in extreme boom or bust cycles. The old editions model was done in response to problems. In the mid-80s TSR almost went bankrupt and 2e was needed to drive new book sales. 3e was needed to help the game recover after TSR finally did collapse. 4e was in response to WotC thinking they could greatly expand D&D's base by appealing to MMORPG players, at the height of World of Warcraft, which was perceived as an near-existential threat. 5e was in response to that turning out to be a bad idea. In other words, the old editions model was inherently reactive.
From WotC's perspective, they now have the most popular version of the game ever, by far, and so they are going to stick with it and keep it evergreen by tweaking as needed. This time, they are not reacting to an existential problem, but being proactive, from a place of strength. So the idea isn't to push out a new edition where everyone either replaces all their books or quits, it's to make updates that cause minimal disruption to a very healthy player base while continuing to attract new players. It's to shift from boom/bust to managed growth. So there isn't intended to be a huge "boom" of excitement for OneD&D because, as they keep explicitly stating, they see this as 5e, continued, and with the word "edition" forever removed.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Well lots of people bought Bugbears and Borderlands and the Shadowdark KS is over 500k and both are a simplified 5e.
Shadowdark is interesting because it’s from a first time publisher and looks to becoming more successful than LevelUp! So clearly there’s an audience for a simplified 5e too.
I don't expect many to agree with me due to the nature of the community.
But there is a reason why there are few complaint threads here, a ton of complaint threads on Reddit, and most videos and blogposts skew negative on the OND&D druid, paladin, bard, and aardling. And a lot of the excitement was even on meh before the OGL drama.
Only @Clint_L and I have given hypotheses on why.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
I don’t disagree with the fact that some people are dissatisfied with the direction of 1DND. What I disagree with is your opinion as to why: catering to grognards
Not catering to grognards.
Giving grognards too large a say in the creation of 5e by making poll thresholds too high.
Many of the stuff 5e current fans say they wish for were shot down in the D&D playtest.
Uni-the-Unicorn!
Hero
Yes, this is what I disagree with. I don’t think 5e was or is currently designed that way.
Edit: I am not saying you’re wrong. It is your opinion, I just have a differing opinion.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
