D&D (2024) What do we call One D&D?

[Maxperson]

To be fair, 3.5 was also a BS gimmicky name in 2003.

Hmm. My friends and I never interpreted it as gimmicky. It just seemed appropriate for something that was not quite a new edition and too different from the old one to really be compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

Hmm. My friends and I never interpreted it as gimmicky. It just seemed appropriate for something that was not quite a new edition and too different from the old one to really be compatible.

Trying to claim that it was "not quite a new edition" was the BS part, making a software patch analogy was the gimmick.

 

[GMMichael]

6e isn't an option, oddly. So, per Chris Perkins' request, it's D&D. Or DND: Do Not Discuss (that we're rendering your 5e books obsolete).

 

[Medic]

• OD&D
• One-D&D State
• Done&Done
• One D&D to Rule Them All
• Dungeons & Dragons One Edition

 

[Argyle King]

D&D76

 

[Argyle King]

With the first playtest document out for the next iteration of D&D, the most important question arises...

What do we call it?!?

There's also these important changes:

• Capitalizing all rule names
• Defining a d20 Test
• Calling out "Repeatable" in every Feat
• No half-races
• No background "Features"
• Only 3 spell lists
• 3 starting languages
• Critical auto-success/failure on skill checks
• Improvised now = furniture
• Tool + Skill Proficiency grants Advantage

To name a few...

Wait...

They've removed background features?

 

[overgeeked]

It's either 5.5 or 6E. We won't know until it's officially released.

 

[overgeeked]

Wait...

They've removed background features?

They don't appear in the playtest packet. You get a feat instead.

 

[Argyle King]

They don't appear in the playtest packet. You get a feat instead.

That's disappointing.

While, yes, I do think there should be a few more opportunities to select feats; I very much enjoyed background features being a distinct character-building step that functioned in its own way.

I'm seeing a lot of reports that people "forget" their features. I believe that. But it's odd to me because I find a lot of the features to be interesting and useful.

 

[overgeeked]

That's disappointing.

While, yes, I do think there should be a few more opportunities to select feats; I very much enjoyed background features being a distinct character-building step that functioned in its own way.

I'm seeing a lot of reports that people "forget" their features. I believe that. But it's odd to me because I find a lot of the features to be interesting and useful.

As much as I liked the idea of features, they were so utterly varied in usefulness and power that they were a nightmare. So easy for the player and the referee to have wildly differing ideas of what they mean and how they're supposed to play out. Like noble. A lot of players seem to want it to be a universal mind control of peasants. A lot of referees simply banned it in response. Or the acolyte's free healing at a temple associated with your deity. Or the hermit's discovery. Or the outlander's free food. Neat idea, terrible implementation.