- Location
- Earth
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I guess this could go under the D&D megathread, but to me it makes sense to have a separate thread to discuss it. (If only so people can talk about this specific, significant, changing topic without getting interrupted by people who want to use the D&D thread to talk about D&D games they are currently playing.)
For those who don't know: "One D&D" is what Wizards of the Coast is calling their upcoming edition of D&D, which will inevitably (and righteously) be renamed to either 5.5 or 6e, depending on how different it is fromD&D Next 5e. You can get the playtest material here if you have a D&D Beyond account. (Like, the free kind, you don't need paid features.)
At the time of posting, the only playtest materials available are "character origins" (races, backgrounds, languages, basic rules) and "expert classes" (bards, rangers, rogues, and a general information about classes).
I'm not just posting this thread because I want other people to talk about it—though to be clear, if this ends up just being a thread where I post my opinions, I will be sad. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that I have opinions on the 5.5 playtest material. To start with...right now, it feels more like 5.5 than 6e. I would welcome debate on such an irrelevant and unquantifiable topic, though; it sounds like a fun discussion.
Anyways.
Character Origins
When I heard that origins were races combined with backgrounds, I was happy. It didn't sound like a perfect solution to D&D's race problem, but ambiguity as to whether certain bonuses were from the background or the race would placate both sides. Moreover, and for me more importantly, the inevitable splatbook expansions would probably give each major race more and more origin options, until there were no traits that all origins had in common.
Then I found out that "origins" just means "the part of your character sheet with race and background" and was disappointed.
But re: D&D's race problem: There have been improvements! While every race still has certain innate characteristics that make them immutably different from other races, they're less overwhelming. In particular, ability score modifiers have been moved to Backgrounds, where they belong. (It never made sense that being a High Elf made you smarter than spending your pre-adventuring as a scholar.)
Subraces Lineages are also (generally) less important than in 5e, which I have mixed feelings about. On one hand, different elves (for instance) having meaningfully different mechanical advantages diluted the sense that elves had monolithic innate abilities; on the other hand, it's not like real-life racists think all people of race X are identical. (Obvious examples include hierarchies among the "white race" [e.g. Nordic vs French] and how the British Raj identified "martial races" among Indian ethnicities.) On the mechanical side, I like modular character creation systems, and significant subraces feel more modular.
That's super subjective. Less subjective: All lineages are crammed into tables, and some lineages really don't fit. I'm looking at the gnomes, especially rock gnomes, which tried to cram four and a half paragraphs into one table cell. That is silly. Stick spells and energy types and such in a table, sure, but put unique abilities in normal paragraphs.
Away from structure, into content. The races are mostly the same as the 5e PHB races, with some small exceptions:
That leaves backgrounds. They're mostly like 5e's, with three big exceptions.
First, as noted above, they get ability score bonuses. Now, instead of asking what races can make class X viable and what backgrounds give little perks that compliment it, players will ask what backgrounds can make class X viable and what races give complimentary perks. As you might have guessed above, I think this is good.
Second, instead of a totally unique and almost useless background feature, each background comes with a specific bonus feat. On one hand, unique features are neat; on the other hand, I literally never found a chance to use them and usually forgot they existed. Also: Every character starting with a feat is no longer a house rule.
Third, while a bunch of premade backgrounds exist, there are also explicit rules for custom backgrounds. This forces all backgrounds to be formulaic; two ability bonuses, two skill proficiencies, etc. But it also means you can just write your own background, if your backstory doesn't quite fit anything in the book. Which is less likely to be a problem; the formulaic construction also makes it easy for WotC to write absolute loads of backgrounds. Some are splitting what were previously one background, like entertainer/gladiator. Some are a variant of an existing background; "guide" is kinda like a hermit who interacts with people. Several are just common professions. Then there's "cultist" and "pilgrim," which don't fit into any category I can think of, but they're new and I like their inclusion.
One criticism: It feels weird to define languages by background and not race if the languages are still gonna be named after the races. But overall, I like this a lot.
Oh, and general rules. Most look like 5e's, but I note two differences: There's a generic Slowed condition, and spell lists are by spell type (arcane/divine/primal) instead of by class. Here's hoping 5.5 keeps plundering good ideas from PF2.
Oh, and natural 20s grant Inspiration. Okay. And there's a simple term for "ability check, attack roll, or skill check". Good.
Expert Classes
General class thoughts:
Specific class thoughts:
Also...
Overall, I'm feeling positive about 5.5. Mostly in extremely generic and unremarkable ways, but it seems like a net improvement to 5e.
For those who don't know: "One D&D" is what Wizards of the Coast is calling their upcoming edition of D&D, which will inevitably (and righteously) be renamed to either 5.5 or 6e, depending on how different it is from
At the time of posting, the only playtest materials available are "character origins" (races, backgrounds, languages, basic rules) and "expert classes" (bards, rangers, rogues, and a general information about classes).
I'm not just posting this thread because I want other people to talk about it—though to be clear, if this ends up just being a thread where I post my opinions, I will be sad. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that I have opinions on the 5.5 playtest material. To start with...right now, it feels more like 5.5 than 6e. I would welcome debate on such an irrelevant and unquantifiable topic, though; it sounds like a fun discussion.
Anyways.
Character Origins
When I heard that origins were races combined with backgrounds, I was happy. It didn't sound like a perfect solution to D&D's race problem, but ambiguity as to whether certain bonuses were from the background or the race would placate both sides. Moreover, and for me more importantly, the inevitable splatbook expansions would probably give each major race more and more origin options, until there were no traits that all origins had in common.
Then I found out that "origins" just means "the part of your character sheet with race and background" and was disappointed.
But re: D&D's race problem: There have been improvements! While every race still has certain innate characteristics that make them immutably different from other races, they're less overwhelming. In particular, ability score modifiers have been moved to Backgrounds, where they belong. (It never made sense that being a High Elf made you smarter than spending your pre-adventuring as a scholar.)
That's super subjective. Less subjective: All lineages are crammed into tables, and some lineages really don't fit. I'm looking at the gnomes, especially rock gnomes, which tried to cram four and a half paragraphs into one table cell. That is silly. Stick spells and energy types and such in a table, sure, but put unique abilities in normal paragraphs.
Away from structure, into content. The races are mostly the same as the 5e PHB races, with some small exceptions:
- The variant human is now the standard human.
- The default flavor is still Forgotten Realms, but there's a nod to the fact that D&D has other settings, where the races can be different. Cool.
- Half-races are gone. There are elves, orcs, and a note that all races can interbreed (with hand-wavey rules about hybrid racial traits).
- Aside from the hand-waviness of the hybrid rules, I think this is a slight improvement. No more favoritism for human/elf and human/orc hybrids just because they date back to AD&D!
- Also, with orcs as a core race, one of the core "evil" races is playable by default. Well, maybe "evil" is the wrong descriptor to use, considering tieflings. But speaking of tieflings...
- All the anti-edgelords finally have a core celestial race to balance out the tieflings. What's an Aasimar? No, these are ardlings, which are different from aasimar because...the second letter in their name is 'r'? They have animal features? They can fly, briefly?
- My best guess is that they're trying to combine the celestial nature of the aasimar with the "wing-bird-guy" nature of the aarakocra, which lets them remove troublesome at-will flight from the latter without actually changing the aarakocra. Still weird.
That leaves backgrounds. They're mostly like 5e's, with three big exceptions.
First, as noted above, they get ability score bonuses. Now, instead of asking what races can make class X viable and what backgrounds give little perks that compliment it, players will ask what backgrounds can make class X viable and what races give complimentary perks. As you might have guessed above, I think this is good.
Second, instead of a totally unique and almost useless background feature, each background comes with a specific bonus feat. On one hand, unique features are neat; on the other hand, I literally never found a chance to use them and usually forgot they existed. Also: Every character starting with a feat is no longer a house rule.
Third, while a bunch of premade backgrounds exist, there are also explicit rules for custom backgrounds. This forces all backgrounds to be formulaic; two ability bonuses, two skill proficiencies, etc. But it also means you can just write your own background, if your backstory doesn't quite fit anything in the book. Which is less likely to be a problem; the formulaic construction also makes it easy for WotC to write absolute loads of backgrounds. Some are splitting what were previously one background, like entertainer/gladiator. Some are a variant of an existing background; "guide" is kinda like a hermit who interacts with people. Several are just common professions. Then there's "cultist" and "pilgrim," which don't fit into any category I can think of, but they're new and I like their inclusion.
One criticism: It feels weird to define languages by background and not race if the languages are still gonna be named after the races. But overall, I like this a lot.
Oh, and general rules. Most look like 5e's, but I note two differences: There's a generic Slowed condition, and spell lists are by spell type (arcane/divine/primal) instead of by class. Here's hoping 5.5 keeps plundering good ideas from PF2.
Oh, and natural 20s grant Inspiration. Okay. And there's a simple term for "ability check, attack roll, or skill check". Good.
Expert Classes
General class thoughts:
- The existence of explicit Class Groups, which may be referenced by other rules, is...interesting. Let's see how and how often this comes up.
- Every four levels (except 20, plus 19) now gives a Feat instead of an Ability Score Increase. Feat is snappier, and I like that feats are now considered the default. Since, y'know, almost everyone liked feats better than a +1 to most relevant rolls. They're just fun!
- Not sure whether I dislike the "XTH LEVEL: ABILITY NAME" headers because they're unfamiliar or because they're kinda dumb. I guess it's nice that they don't need to squish a "Starting at Xth level" into every ability description (or assume you'll reference the table).
- I definitely like that there are suggested spells for spellcasting classes to choose at 1st level. I'll ignore them, but it's handy for new players.
- It seems like classes are getting more abilities from their subclasses, or getting them earlier? If this is a consistent trend, I like it. It makes classes' modularity more meaningful, and as I've mentioned, I like modular character creation.
- "Subclass" is now an official term. No more bard colleges or monk paths, at least in playtest material. That's sad; the terminology added a bit of flavor to the classes.
- The (a) and (b) choices for class-based gear selection are gone. Worse, there's not a "Pick X kind of weapon" in sight! This makes character creation less modular, and you know how I feel about that.
Specific class thoughts:
- Bardic Inspiration can heal, without needing to learn a healing spell. Nice that their role as backup healer is more formally acknowledged.
- Bards "prepare" spells. It's not clear if spontaneous casting has been removed, or if WotC is making bards wizardlier. They used to be magic because they studied magic lore, like a wizard; if that paradigm is returning, it makes sense that they'd cast spells like a wizard, too.
- Rangers can choose to have Expertise in any skill, not just naturey ones. The book suggests Survival and Stealth, two very naturey ones, but it's still interesting that it doesn't say something like "Pick two from the following list: Animal Handling, Medicine, Perception, Stealth, or Survival". Not interesting-bad, mind you!
- Favored Enemy/Terrain is gone. I imagine it'll be back in a ranger subclass eventually. I like that rangers don't have to staple that "I have a specific prey that I hunt in a specific location" idea onto their character to be a martial wilderness guy.
- It feels a little weird that rogues don't get more expertise than bards or rangers. Reliable Talent isn't nothing, but they don't feel skill-focused enough to be The Skill Class, nor sneaky enough to be The Sneaky Class. I'm not sure what their identity is as a class, beyond "the Expert Class that doesn't act like Aragorn or Prince Edward Chris von Muir".
Also...
- More feats! Including Epic Boons, 5.5's way of adding epic progression without going as absurd as 3.5's ELH. Much as I like the absurdity of ELH, bonus feats seem like a strictly better way to handle this kind of thing. Or maybe multiclassing.
- Barkskin grants regenerating temporary hit points, which makes it less situational and more unique.
- New exhaustion rules. Notable among them, a flat -1/level to all d20 tests. A temporary effect which grants a numeric bonus or penalty to rolls would be unremarkable in 3.5, but 5e avoided them. Also, you can survive more exhaustion.
- Heroic Inspiration, which gives advantage like Inspiration, but you gain it by rolling a natural 1, and can have both Inspiration and Heroic Inspiration at the same time. I like the idea of giving players something after suffering a critical miss, but A. critical misses aren't a thing and B. this game is accumulating too many features called Inspiration.
- Light weapons can be meaningfully dual-wielded without spending a bonus action on the second attack. Neat.
- New actions for using specific skills, and a Magic action. Okay.
Overall, I'm feeling positive about 5.5. Mostly in extremely generic and unremarkable ways, but it seems like a net improvement to 5e.
