OneDnD The timing of the playtest

This is, really my point. I don't want to buy the books, now -- had they waited a week, I would have had the new warm fuzzies over Spelljammer that I was looking forward to (since April/whenever). It's not there now, because there is a new/uynpredictable/shiny just up ahead.

Being "compatible" is fine, but it's not enough to get me to buy. If there's going to be a new/current version of something my interest in the previous one becomes that of a historian, not a player. I don't want to mix-and-match between alternate versions; that invites a particular form of system mastery that favour older players and those with more money, which I don't like. I would love it if everything in Tasha's, Xanathar's MotM etc. all remained "current" but at this point I can't expect it to -- and they're core books. The impetus for keeping settings, etc. in canon as it were is by definition less.
Then don’t buy it!
Aside the new phb and core books, all other new material will be roughly compatible with the current edition. There will be some glitch but overall you can stick to the current books and keep shopping new material once in a while.

but surely new classes will be more cool, and just a thin line over actual classes but I guess you can live with that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I would love for this to be true. I haven't seen the 2024 release yet, though, and I expect there will be new ideas emerging from the playtest.

I get what you're saying regarding the edition shift feeling "more real" - it really did that to me, as well, in spite of us all knowing full well that there was going to be 50th Anniversary Core books, and that they'd have changes.

The OneD&D announcement somehow managed to make me feel like the changes would be both bigger than I expected, and somehow smaller than I expected. (I think I may have been imagining TWO scenarios, which this looks like it will fit somewhere between!)

At any rate, I am 95% sure that the upcoming books will work absolutely fine with the new core. Mostly because I don't expect them to have a lot of class or subclass options (which I think will be the most changed by the revision).

There IS ONE THING I'd like to see (and I feel that I have evidence to support the theory that they're at least THINKING about this:) Redesigned layout of Monster Statblocks. The CONTENT is one thing, the LAYOUT is another. I think it's time for a change. MPMotM may be the beginning of the new design philosophy, but it's quite possible that the statblock will change design before we see the 50AE MM.

But you'd still be able to run those monsters, absolutely. You'll still be able to run 2014 monsters, even if they're slightly off design-wise.
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
I imagine we've already seen 90% of the revised edition, in the more recent books like Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.
The real big question is if they are restructuring the Classes. I doubt it is a coincidence that testing one Class a month would bring us to the end of the stated time frame for the playtest.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I get what you're saying regarding the edition shift feeling "more real" - it really did that to me, as well, in spite of us all knowing full well that there was going to be 50th Anniversary Core books, and that they'd have changes.

The OneD&D announcement somehow managed to make me feel like the changes would be both bigger than I expected, and somehow smaller than I expected. (I think I may have been imagining TWO scenarios, which this looks like it will fit somewhere between!)

At any rate, I am 95% sure that the upcoming books will work absolutely fine with the new core. Mostly because I don't expect them to have a lot of class or subclass options (which I think will be the most changed by the revision).

I think (unsurprisingly?) we're on the same page here. Even if it is still possible to run the old subclasses, I am wary of the power-realignment that is obviously happening (1st-level feats, etc.)
 

Reynard

Legend
The real big question is if they are restructuring the Classes. I doubt it is a coincidence that testing one Class a month would bring us to the end of the stated time frame for the playtest.
I don't know how that would actually help us test much, though. Class synergies are as important as solo class behaviors IMO. It's like giving us the "no GM crits" without the balancing monster recharge abilities.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
The real big question is if they are restructuring the Classes. I doubt it is a coincidence that testing one Class a month would bring us to the end of the stated time frame for the playtest.
That's interesting observation, but I hope it's not accurate.

One class per month would PREVENT any real playtesting -- it would lead to responses based only on whiteroom analysis, or mixed-edition groups.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don't know how that would actually help us test much, though. Class synergies are as important as solo class behaviors IMO. It's like giving us the "no GM crits" without the balancing monster recharge abilities.
Qell, probably about the same as them giving us the race rules without anything else: they want the options playtestedalongside the 2014 options because they are dead serious about normalizing backwards and forwards compatibility.

What they did say is that the Character Origins UA is the big one, and that the future UA drops will be smaller and more focused. So, whether they are doing one Class at a time or a couple at a time, it would seem that Classes are likely to be the bulk of testing.
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's interesting observation, but I hope it's not accurate.

One class per month would PREVENT any real playtesting -- it would lead to responses based only on whiteroom analysis, or mixed-edition groups.
Mixed edition groups are an explicit goal of the playtest, per Crawford. The 21 page document so far is not a complete game: they want people to play mixed rule Characters, not just groups. And for UA, the goal is less "playtesting" and more "do you want this?" Actual hard playtesting is handled by their private playtest network.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
My impression of the Spelljammer books is...not good. There are extraordinarily few rules, and a whole lot of art, and maps of stuff which already existed in prior editions. The rules are so sparse that they literally just say "don't worry about it" when it comes to how to turn a ship, for example. And the ship weapons are so bad they tell you to not use them and just use PC ranged attacks if you want to be effective. And ship speeds make no sense. Between worlds they go too slow to actually reach a different star, and in system they literally move slower than a PC with 10 strength moving by thought alone.

I feel like these books were slapped together in a hasty manner. The only thing worth having is the new races and some monsters, and even the new races are sloppy at times. Hadozees for example are broken when combined with the ordinary jumping rules and can move 150 feet in a single move. [The Hadozee glide ability says any time they move downwards in the air they can glide 5ft at no movement cost. A 10 strength Hadozee can perform a standing, vertical jump of 1ft into the air. They then glide 5ft forward. This whole maneuver costs 1ft of movement. With 30ft movement, they can “jump-glide” 150ft per turn.]

And of course they're super thin books - 64 pages in a handback book looks like a pamphlet.

You can literally pull better ship rules out of Ghosts of Saltmarsh and house rule them for space ships far better than anything in these books.

I am pretty disappointed in WOTC for this release. It has me suspecting Planescape will be bad as well. They phoned this one in. And I've never said that about a 5e release.
I appreciate the frank impressions.

I was thinking about getting these…just in case. Something weird is happening on my campaign world’s moon!

But after this I am skeptical. I have saltmarsh and the things coming probably can use those rules…
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I think (unsurprisingly?) we're on the same page here. Even if it is still possible to run the old subclasses, I am wary of the power-realignment that is obviously happening (1st-level feats, etc.)

I honestly hope for a class restructuring, or at least a strong look at weak elements (design-wise, not power-wise, though sometimes those are the same thing) and I wouldn't mind if subclasses were carved more design space (though if they did that, they'd have to revise all the non-PHB subclasses.) I wouldn't want anything that couldn't be accomplished with an errata document for the non-PHB items to get them in line with the 50th PHB, though!

BUT... none of that should effect the upcoming books. I KNOW, it's hard not to worry (I admit, as a retailer, I plan to lowball my orders on the upcoming books just in case - it shouldn't stop me from being able to get more (other than the alt covers) if I need them).

I still don't think it should effect what you buy - if you're interested in Spelljammer, you should get Spelljammer. I don't believe that it will be obsoleted by the 2024 Core books. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy a DMG right now, if I was anyone. Nor would I recommend the PHB, Xanathar's, Tasha's, or the 2014 MM. The rest of the books are relatively safe, unless you're buying them for the subclasses, races, or monsters.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I appreciate the frank impressions.

I was thinking about getting these…just in case. Something weird is happening on my campaign world’s moon!

But after this I am skeptical. I have saltmarsh and the things coming probably can use those rules…

The Salmarsh ship rules and the Spelljammer rules are essentially the same thing, and neither work very well. I might make a thread to discuss it...
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The Salmarsh ship rules and the Spelljammer rules are essentially the same thing, and neither work very well. I might make a thread to discuss it...
It's for quick and dirty vehicular combat situstiona, not in depth simulation, that's true. Personally, I need quick and dirty most of the time!
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
It's for quick and dirty vehicular combat situstiona, not in depth simulation, that's true. Personally, I need quick and dirty most of the time!
I don't want in-depth simulation. I want something that players understand what's going on without me having to ignore half the rules and make up my own to keep it fun for them. I'll start the thread when I get home and we can talk about it there.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I don't want in-depth simulation. I want something that players understand what's going on without me having to ignore half the rules and make up my own to keep it fun for them. I'll start the thread when I get home and we can talk about it there.

I really like the naval combat rules in Tribality Games's "Seas of Vodari" campaign setting. It sounds like they might be worth checking out, if you're looking for something intuitive and not-Saltmarsh. They have a 28-page, Pay-What-You-Want sample PDF available here if you'd like to take a look.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
I don't want in-depth simulation. I want something that players understand what's going on without me having to ignore half the rules and make up my own to keep it fun for them. I'll start the thread when I get home and we can talk about it there.
The truth is that weird complicated models probably don’t really change much in terms of prediction when dealing with fantasy things.

Something players can use to make decisions about random encounters—-educated guesses/calculated risks but that keeps the action going is where it’s at for rpgs—for me.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I don't want in-depth simulation. I want something that players understand what's going on without me having to ignore half the rules and make up my own to keep it fun for them. I'll start the thread when I get home and we can talk about it there.

Proficiency in water vehicles/spelljammer ships/whatever is an easy low-bar differentiator that (if the first p;aytest document is anything to go by) is being eliminated.

I hope they are not committed to that, as my feedback will indicate.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top