D&D (2024) What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? (+)

JEB

Legend
Historically, they have never tested Mosnters in UA, and I doubt that will change here.
That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).
This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.
 

JEB

Legend
This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.
The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.

Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.

Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.
Yes, it's for Core books. But format wise, we are looking st a dozen or so packets of somewhat less than twenty pages each (possibly much less, we'll see).
 


TheSword

Legend
Ability scores shouldn’t be capped. I takes away from customization and the point of leveling up if you can never go past 20.

It’s bot like the Ability Scores can even go that high now that they got rid of Epic Levels. What’s the point in capping them?
If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?

The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.
 
Last edited:


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I don't think it will happen but, if Feats will no longer be optional, drop ASIs. For half Feats just allow +1 to any score. Simply increasing numbers doesn't feel like it adds much to a character, just makes monsters fall out of scale faster. I would allow fighters and rogues the option only from their extra Feats.
I agree, going back to the old style where you got a feat at these points & an attribute bonus at those points would be a big improvement over5e's "maybe my PCs have a 5+prof+mods or maybe it's 3+prof+more feats" would simplify things a lot for GMs trying to balance encounters & magic items across the party.
 

d24454_modern

Explorer
If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?

The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.
If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top