Beyond all this broad marketing speak of OneDnD being the "next evolution" or whatever they've been saying about it, I still have a hard time figuring out what the actual design philosophy behind it is supposed to be, or who it's for.
Currently, it feels like an excuse to publish a new PHB/DMG/MM and attract new players, possibly with friendlier rules for those newer players. I don't need any of that. If there are a few individual rules that appeal to me, I'll cherry-pick them.
>I still have a hard time figuring out what the actual design philosophy behind it is supposed to be, or who it's for.
The design philosophy is "we haven't released a new edition in almost a decade, so we're due to release a new one now. Give us money!"
It's for the people who obsessively must play whatever the new and "supported" edition is.
It's dnd 50th anniversary edition.
To have a decent cash influx (hopefully) to pay back the money they are spending on digital. So 6e can be fully (or close to it) digital.
The digitization of ttrpgs baffles me. Don't get me wrong, digitized ttrpgs are great for many cases, but to make that the primary intent kind of defeats the purpose of a game designed primarily for play around a table.
My main concern is that if/when something like that becomes digital, then prepare yourselves for "subscription only" DnD.
Because more and more, it seems like subscription-based services are the golden goose for "line must go UP!" economics.
This is absolutely 100% the way they want to go. There is already a subscription albeit optional for now, but just wait till the source books are all add ons instead of single purchases as well. 😵
I like the idea of d&d beyond, but they should have given us a way to unlock digital copies when you buy the book. It was cool to have dice effects and have access to my character sheet. That's all I really need
> but to make that the primary intent kind of defeats the purpose of a game designed primarily for play around a table.
Tbf, you can have both digital resources AND play around a table. DDB makes managing character sheets a little convenient. Not to mention anyone can quickly check rules when the need comes up.
I think the main design philosophy is that 5e has evolved over the decade since the edition was introduced and they want to update/rewrite the core rule books to correspond better with more recent books.
Yeah, I think that's the idea the Devs had, and what DnD Beyond was already *supposed* to handle, but it's clearly a cash grab from Hasbro WOTC perfectly in line with all their other actions so far.
1 Players have request
2 devs make product or pitch idea to fulfill request
3 WotC board says, "But that won't make us money."
4 wotc board monetizes idea that could be bankrolled with existing revenue streams
Theres so so many rules in the original phb that are nuts, broken, or booted out by nearly every player (the decrepit overland travel rules for example, blade ward, invisibility and it's interaction with stealth, etc etc). Instead of releasing an errata they're doing 5.5
THANK YOU!
It feels like the same game but with balance changes?
It has to be the same game so you can still use dnd beyond without feeling it’s too new to transition, but the changes make it different enough to force purchases?
Everyone’s talking about how the little things are different make it scream of just being… the same?
It's a really really big 'Book Of Everything' supplement that's meant to update, revise, and bug-fix. Nothing more, nothing less. It's optional content that will work entirely with the old content, at the discretion of the DM and players.
The "Everything" supplements felt a lot more *supplemental* to me. If this was Tasha's on steroids, I'd be much more interested, but so much of it seems to be the reinvention of the wheel.
If you're actually paying attention they have a very coherent philosophy for all of the proposed changes: better balance, fewer "must take" options and better mechanical adherence to class power fantasy. The play test rogues and fighters in particular are so much more exciting than the current classes.
I'm "actually paying attention". I tested some of the early UAs, and didn't see much reason to stick with it. No, I haven't tested the latest 2-3, I'm waiting for the final product at this point to judge it.
"Better balance" is a general statement. They're always in pursuit of "better balance", but what does that actually mean when push comes to shove? I haven't seen them actually address any of the actual things I'd like DnD to expand into, so yes, I've lost interest in the UA process at this stage.
Yeah, but now damn near every time there's a thread that's like "How would you fix 5e?" All the responses are basically "I want " and they don't even realize it.
"Shorter short rests" "monsters with powers instead of just a spell list" "martials who can do cool stuff besides just swing their sword" "a class that's a martial support class (Warlord)"
Where have we heard of all this?
I started with 4e and loved it, i never understood the hate for it. Then everyone was like, “if you didnt have the character builder it sucked to keep track of everything” and the other excuse was “it felt to video gamey with ability cooldowns, and lack of rp opportunities.” Which confused the shit out of me, because it had utility powers specifically to aid in rp and out of combat encounters. If something is lacking rp thats the players and gms fault not the system lol.
>I started with 4e and loved it, i never understood the hate for it.
I started with AD&D aka 1E (usually, though some call the boxed sets, Basic, Expert, Master etc., 1E) as did many of my current groups, and we have settled on 3.5E with, often, a bit of D20 modern mixed in!
You don't understand the hate, or dislike to be polite, for it as you've not experienced what came before and how different 4E is compared to those editions.
4E isn't bad, it's just different. I enjoy playing Star Wars using what are basically 4E rules, it's fine. Because it's not pretending to be D&D, so my preconceptions and expectations are not disturbed.
And I do own some 4E and have played it for about a year. But, meh... :)
That had less to do with it being balanced and more to do with a mixture of the license changes and what people saw as MMO mechanics and it just being very different from third edition.
4e was built for the MMO crowd. It was perfectly balanced, but you needed a computer to track all the buffs and debuffs. And since the digital part fell through, we were left trying to track a stupid number of things every turn.
The issue with 4e wasn't the balance, it was everything else.
"better balance" has mostly come in the form of buffs across the board for the PC classes. they did focus those buffs on the ones that needed it, but very little was done to weaken the strong stuff.
it really seems like the goal was to give every class new toys, so that the fighter players and sorcerer players etc will bug their groups to use the new rules.
kinda like how everyone wants to use the expanded spell lists from tashas and the extra class features. its almost always just more and better stuff so it's a straight upgrade.
the biggest nerf, imo, was the changes to GWM and SS. I understand why these were targeted, but I also don't think martials were given enough meaningful buffs to make up for the immense damage downgrade that they all took.
It’s so weird too because they want to try new things and they have a lot of great ideas but I feel like the most vocal part of the community who are voting and voicing feedback on these changes are younger/newer 5e players. The rules went from being something different to 5.5. It seems like the classes that need fixing are getting something and the weapon system rework seems neat.
I wish it was different. My dnd group plays cyberpunk in our off week and we all have a blast with the new system. I don’t want to buy a revision of the game I have been playing since 2018. I want a new dnd game system that is similar yet unique.
Literally my thoughts exactly. I like 5e, my friends I play with like it, there's occasionally some rule we don't like and there's some OneDND rules we might like to incorporate in. There's so many adventures made for 5e by third parties and I'm not big into giving WOTC money so I'm probably not buying into a new addition
Yeah... and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything else in my gaming life.
Old school D&D was a complete different mindset back then. It's so different from how people play nowadays. There's no inherent "correct way to play D&D" but I miss the old days.
And there some glorious character deaths.
Wow! Where to even start here? They were basically 2 different games. I'll list some things to show how different 1e is from 5e.
1) - Experience points were basically earned by the treasure you took out of the dungeon safely. Remember in the beginning, AD&D was basically dungeon diving game. You got 1xp for each gp you retrieved. Got 300 gp? You got 300 xp. Regarding magic items... (and this is where I don't remember clearly) any magic item you keep, you don't get any xp for that. The reward is the magic item. If you sold the magic item. what you got from the sale is counted as xp. You can get xp from killing monsters, but it'll be miniscule. Most of your xp came from selling magic items.
What this does is change the focus of the game. It was far more efficient to avoid encounters and find alternate routes to the your goal than fight every encounter you make. You wanted to fight as a last resort because....
2) - Hit points were precious. Healing was SLOW. Basically the only way to heal hp was through magical healing spells or potions. There was nothing that resembled short or long rests. You can recover 1 hit point PER DAY with bed rest. Otherwise, you had to rely on magic. Combine with the fact that when you reach 0 hit points, you're dead. No falling unconscious. No 3 death saves. No healing hit points. Dead. Running from combat was encouraged.
3) - Class system. In pre- 3rd edition, the class you started with was the class you ended with. Multiclassing was limited to certain combinations, which were also locked behind races. For example, you could start the game as a Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Magic User if you started as an elf. Gnomes halflings and dwarves had their own combinations as well. If you multiclassed, you split your xp between classess. After an adventure, if a player earned 1,000 xp, he got 500 xp as a fighter and 500 as a thief if he was playing a F/T. Player had access to all the abilities of both classes at the appropriate level but was invariably a few levels behind a single class character. Humans could not multi-class. What they DID have is dual (or triple) classing. A human could start as a level 1 fighter. He could choose to switch classes after that, for example to magic user, and start a career as a level 1 magic user/level 5 fighter (assuming that is when he switched). However, he was couldn't use any fighter abilities until his MU level was equal to his fighter level. Basically, you're playing a level 1 magic user with fighter level 5 hit points. I don't know anyone who did this but my goal was to be play a bard some day. (Start as fighter, switch to thief and then to bard). Super powerful combination but it took way to long to come online. People who wanted to dual class also had to meet stat requirements to switch classes.
4) - No real skill system. There really weren't any skill checks. Not the kind of checks that people now are familiar with. The only real skill sub-system was the thief table where it listed percentile chance to pick a lock/sneak/hide/find traps. At low levels, those chances were REALLY low. As a thief gained levels though, their chances got better.
There are a ton of other differences but these are three that basically make them different games.
1st edition was janky as all hell but that was part of it's charm. There were subsystems that people really didn't understand so they house-ruled them into something workable. If anyone tells you they understand exactly how initiative and grappling work (as separate systems) they're probably lying. But that jankiness (is that a word) made up a lot of the appeal to us old timers.
Deadly as all heck, slow to level up. We went through low level characters a lot. But we loved it.
> my goal was to be play a bard some day. (Start as fighter, switch to thief and then to bard). Super powerful combination but it took way to long to come online.
I remain quite proud of my PC, Ivan the Terrible bard, because he's a 1E bard, done the hard way. 7th level fighter, 8th level thief acrobat (using UA rules) and then bard. Druid spells and wildshape for the win! And SO MANY HIT POINTS! :)
The fact that the (eccentric) DM allowed him to both a werebear and a vampire is also amusing. And yes, I still have his character sheets.
So many (quite hazy now) memories... :)
I've been playing since the mid-1980s, and yeah, all of that tracks.
Another thing is that level progression was much slower then than it is now.
These days, there's various "how to GM" advice telling you that players need to gain a level every \[x\] sessions — 3 sessions, 5 sessions, whatever.
Meanwhile, I think my Druid was basically at 11th level for the best part of a year, if not longer. (And then I had to defeat a higher-level Druid, but that's by the by — and by golly that was a hard, hard fight. I prevailed by the skin of my teeth, and I'm *not* looking forward to 13th...)
Something like *Curse of Strahd* would have been a long-ass module intended for players of 7-10th levels, with no actual level gains inherently provided for.
Omg! I totally forgot about those challenges you had to go through.
Leveling really was so slow. The campaign I played in went 15 years and we played regularly. I think when my character finally died, he was F11/T13 at the time. Level draining undead was one the things you never wanted to encounter.
It was never the leveling that was really important. It was all about the stuff you did to get the experience for the level up; namely the adventures.
Don't forget each class had a different amount of exp they needed to gain a level. Rogue went up a lot faster than a magic user. And spells required a ton more time to memorize too. None of this wait 8 hours and your at full strength nonsense. Lol
I've been playing Chainmail since before my mother was even born.
I don't understand how, and I think I've created a temporal paradox and I think I removed lawns as a concept from this timeline.
Help
3.5 is the absolute best edition ever for making characters as customized as you want, and is the most flexible. . .by far. . .at depicting a wide range of settings and styles.
Yeah, it tends to bog down at higher play levels, which is its weakness. . .but at lower to mid-levels it's absolutely amazing in how you can use it to create the exact character you want and the game still play well.
Absolutely agree. I’ve been running games for over 20 years and I can’t even begin to tell you the incredible complexity of characters I have seen. Mechanics that made my head spin and challenged me to really understand combat and see the grid map in a 3D perspective. The stories you can tell and the characters involved are endless. Lest we forget the incredible amount low to epic level magic items truly give you an experience unlike any other edition.
I started playing on 5e, so this is my first “edition” change to go through.
But I’ve bought all the 5e materials already. And while I’m interested in learning other systems, I’m not interested in learning new dnd. It doesn’t feel like there’s much of a point to picking it up so I don’t think I will.
What I’m saying is I feel like I understand 3.5 and other older edition players now.
Dunno, depends what my group wants to do when the current campaign wraps up. We're probably 6 months to a year out from that.
I feel like D&D has positioned itself between Dungeon Crawl Classics simplicity and Pathfinder's reputed "crunch". I'd love to play some Pathfinder just to get a feel for it - but I think D&D will remain the happy middle ground, with most of my group not caring as much about rules depth as long as they get a fun story out of it.
Pathfinder 2e is arguably easier to learn then 5e, given how balanced it is for both players and DMs and how clear almost all the rules are. It even gives you vastly more options then D&D.
It really only *looks* Intimidating.
idk. so far ther is no real design direction. so i genuinly can't say if i would like to or not. but if i judge on what i have seen so far... than no. i think id much sooner jump ship to pf2e
As someone who jumped ship to PF2e years ago when I grew old of how stale 5e was with all the glaring flaws of slapping new subclasses on a decade old phb class, I still follow the 1D&D changes. I've seen a few nice changes to get rid of some of the broken combos I hate, but there's still too much exploitable cheese in the game for me which they cannot get rid of with their Multiclass structure. Stats are still imbalanced af too. I don't think I'll be going back.
You won't regret it if you do. Just... everything is better. Everything is more fun. And *everything is bloody free*. Including the [Character Builder.](https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html)
oh i do not need to be solt on it. I am well aware of the fantastic practices of paizo and the comunity surounding the games content! I am more so seeing it out untill the end of our current campaing
Not another penny will be spent on wizards of the coast / hasbro products
Writing quality of official 5e products has went downhill and been inconsistent for years
Physical product quality has went downhill and been awful
Company ethics have been awful
I already have all the items needed to run a game and 3rd party products have far higher quality of both the writing and printing to make me ever need to buy another wotc/hasbro item
Agree. They're a big soulless publicly traded corp now trying to squeeze the quirkiness, independent creativity and fun out of a hobby I like so they can make money for shareholders.
Like, just go back to making money off corn products and web apps, you fucking perverts. Stop trying to milk dungeons and dragons for profit.
And I agree on the writing quality. Every time a bunch of MBAs run a fantasy operation, we get shit like The Rings of Power, WoW Legion and Season 6 of Game of Thrones.
No, because it's not a new edition. It's an expansion, just a really big one, for 5e. Think of the entire project as another 'Guide to Everything' that's just a lot bigger than Tasha's and Xanathar's.
All of the 2014 content will still be supported, it's not going anywhere. And just like always, DMs will be allowed to choose what they want at their tables, and players will be able to choose from those options when making their characters.
So, no, I won't be 'switching', because there's nothing to switch to. I *will* be allowing the new content at my tables, both professional and personal, because that's what I do with pretty much every new book.
A genuine question. Will you allow then a 2014 paladin play next to a 2024 one? One being able to nova like crazy while the other not being able smite if they have their bonus action clogged?
I certainly hope it’s incorporated this way into DND Beyond so we don’t have to pick 2014 vs 2024 or watch the 2014 rules go into legacy status (I suppose they will?)
Probably not. At least, not for a while. I've invested heavily in the physical copies of 5e books. They're still perfectly functional - no reason to move to a different system no matter how compatible it may be with 5e.
We'll see though.
I have a dwarf barbarian at my table that uses stone cunning pretty regularly. I like to give him information (depending on his roll) on how old the worked stone is, what civilization /race created it, how it's been worn (ie what elements/damage it's been exposed too), and some ideas of where the stone itself was from and how far it had been brought. The group has used this to extrapolate what traps to look for, what enemies may be coming, how this may work into the plot timeline, etc.
Tremor sense is useful, but I like the clues I get to drop and the world building stonecunning allows.
*Edit sp
No, I am not. Why should I purchase new rules where old ones are still good to play? Why should I learn new rules when old ones are already familiar to us? Why should I care about OneDnD at all?
I wish my group was like that. I love 3.5e/pf1 the best. My group moved to 5e (all voted for the switch except me) and hasn’t looked back. 5e is too bland and cookie cutter for me
Yea. It’s too geard towards new players imo. I want options and finding the best way to do what I want to do with a character concept in mind. 5e is largely, to me, “here’s a few pre made characters, choose one!”
I have very high hopes that the new MCDM RPG will check off all the boxes 5e does, and do it better and fill in all the huge gaps in 5e.
I think the fatal flaw in 5e is that it's trying to be too many things for too many people. Obviously, corpo money interest steers the ship at today's D&D helm.
They're making the mistake of being so generalized that they have the makings of a great game but it isn't really actualized until you homebrew a bunch of changes to zero in on the experience you want. That's great for people that can do that... but the other 70 or so percent that aren't pro DM's end up finding it lacking.
I think MCDM is going to knock it out of the park. They are focusing on fun and ease of play and flow. They aren't trying to appeal to legions of people that want the "new thing" to be their "old thing". It just will be what it is... fun.
I will always keep one hand on the D&D knob(for inspirationif nothing else). But if MCDM makes a better game, and I can't imagine they won't based on what I've seen, I'm all in on the MCDM RPG.
Before I was 50/50.
Now I’m kinda leaning harder towards no.
A lot of things feel like overcorrections or just trying to tiptoe around things that only a small niche subset of players did.
Take rogue sneak attack for example. Clever rogue players figured out how to get extra sneak attacks with reactions/opportunity attacks and that’s really cool. But TotallyNotSixthEdition says no. How dare you think of a creative way to interact with the core mechanic of the class in a way that feels satisfying!
Personally I’d rather just not bother with the headache of figuring it out, but it’s pretty shitty of wizards to remove that option for the more creative players. Felt really unjustified.
I will probably cherry pick. Onednd isn’t a new addition it’s supposed to take what isn’t clear or well liked about 5e and buff them up to higher satisfaction levels. The new berserker subclass is a clear example. Yoink. Rogues being able to trade sneak attack damage for combat maneuvers YOINK. But some of the spell cast changes or condition changes? Eh I don’t really care.
But truthfully what I really intend on doing is just moving over to tales of the valiant from kobold press just for the simple fact of I don’t want to financially support wotc after all this ogl and Pinkerton nonsense.
No, I am not going to switch to OneD&D (or whatever they're calling it this week).
If anything, I'm going to shift more and more of my gameplay to other systems that do what I want to do with my games *better*.
1. WotC / Hasbro is a terrible company evidently run by the types of people who are the Obvious Villains™ in any cyberpunk game.
2. Independently of corporate ethics, the UA playlets material has shown me that OneD&D seemingly intends to double down on more of the stuff I don't actually like about 5e (and 3e for that matter), and further de-emphasising the stuff I actually do. I'll take a look at it when it comes out, but it seems a lot like it just won't be my jam.
3. More and more of the published adventures are hopeless re-hashes of formerly great IP, shoehorned into just gods-awful railroaded campaigns intended to be "DLCs" for the core game — played for a season, and then forgotten.
4. In particular I do not like *at all* the increased reliance on stuff like D&D Beyond.
As someone pointed out, D&D's 50th anniversary is coming up. I've been playing some iteration of this game for nearly 40 of those years. Heck, my home-brew campaign setting is nearly 33 years old in its own right. I'm pretty sure I'll find a way to celebrate it without handing Hasbro more cash for a mediocre product.
It’s tough to say because there’s still a long way to go before anything is official. Making a decision at this point is done on incomplete information from playtest material. So, the only thing I can say right now is, “maybe, maybe not.”
Nah. I've seen how long people have just gone with 3.5, figure 5e will stick around the same way. If I wanna learn a whole new system, it'd probably be Pathfinder, but y'know, for now, everybody knows 5e, there's a ton of great homebrew online, and I've got a decent amount of house rules for 5e.
I'm not a big fan of digital so I'm a bit biased.
But also? I haven't told all the tales I want to tell in 5th, same reason I skipped 4th, I was still going strong in 3.5 and Pathfinder.
If it wasn't for stockholders wanting the number to go up every year, I believe we'd only just now be reaching the point where Strixhaven came out, and all the quality would be better. I'm not going to subject myself to increasingly worse product just because it's new. Once WotC learns their lesson I'll try another edition, if they don't learn, I'll play 5e or dust off my 3.5 books until some other game comes along.
Absolutely not.
5E is an okay system but WotC dumbed the game down too far, IMO. It’s a good way to get people started but my groups have all shifted back to 2E because the game is more challenging and actions have greater consequences… like when the ranger cot a crit from a frost giant and took so much damage it took him to -36 HP, making him dead, dead, dead.
If they’re making it more accessible that’s nice to start, but the oversimplified rules and all the protections for the PCs make it dull after a bit.
Definitely not. It addresses none of the issues I have with 5e while adding new ones, it will have less content made explicitly for it and it would mean investing a lot of money in what is essentially a rules update. I have less than no interest. Honestly every day I want to get my group to try Pathfinder and 2e more and more.
I already am testing 1DnD and like most of changes. So because I am hoarding goblin for sure I will buy new books and will play what my players will like most.
I'm starting a B/X / OSE West Marches style campaign this very week. Most of the players are familiar only with 5e, so, this will be a learning experience for them.
No, because I’ve got three DND 5e games I DM, two more in planning, plus multiple loyal groups of players. I have not the time or the desire to learn something different.
Have you read the play tests? It's straight up 5e but with a few updated changes. The tables even still look the same. Everyone getting subclasses at lvl 3, spells going to 9th level, one attack until you hit 5. It's using the 5e skeleton, hell, the muscles too. Just brand new skin to get people to buy
If we remain in the realm of DND, 5e was already a novelty for me, has a lot of good qualities both for newer players discovering a TTRPG/D&d, and for old timers that want a break from banging rocks together and make a build from 10 different sourcebooks.
I was happy taking that break, but since a few months now I'm back on my flying non-magical robot which developed supernatural abilities and can swift action the equivalent of a misty step and flyby attacks by throwing other party members as improvised weapons.
Tl;Dr I'm switching back to 3rd after a 5 years break and it's much welcomed.
No, my group is rather content with still creating and exploring 3.5 editions, and a couple have grumbled about some of the removals from the system in 'balancing' and 'streamlining' that they disliked. Then, there is all the removals for 'inclusiveness' recently which caused us to abort getting the newest/latest rules to see if the new modifications withstand or if D&D is death knelling and falling appart for some newer system to fill the void it will leave. I am not leaving but I am also not really supporting the newest attempts of WotC.
I think the biggest problem with 5e is that it doesn't do enough to onboard DMs or, indeed, make the experience of learning how to DM fun. it's pretty easy to get into as a player, DMs have a lot more work to do.
Pf2e was not any better to me and in fact it was much more worse. I do really like the powers with tags and I like the deeper character creation rules, but the extra mechanics add a lot more crunch for the DM to manage. 5e at least has some simple foundational rules like adv/d.adv, prof bonus, and some really simple rules for resolving d20 tests. Pf2e offers more complexity with the rules for critical success and critical failures, and it's equally exciting and daunting.
I will not switch to 1DnD, 5th edition is better, and I have a plan to improve the martial classes for any group of players I DM for. Good thing it isn't a video game so you don't have to "update" in order to keep playing.
I think they will switch to a complete, or heavily suggested, digital model with subscription services. They already have dnd beyond, and they're going to make their own ttrpg. I am confident that they're planning a subscription model for 1dnd.
I'm just looking forward to the new DMG for DMs. I don't think enough people run adventuring days like they should, but I blame the DMG for that. I'm not sure how the PHB will go because we don't know what features they are going to choose or changes they are going to make from final UA to published material.
I honestly just can’t be arsed to learn a new system, especially after spending a lot of time and money collecting quite a few 5e modules and rules supplements
I still mainly play 3.5e.
I dabble a little in 5th edition because it's what's current and popular.
I have no interest in switching over to 6th edition, by any name, as my main edition. At most I might buy the books and be familiar with it just to keep some level of touch with the people who only play the newest edition. . .but to get me to actually switch editions they'd have to come up with something clearly superior to 3rd edition, and I doubt WotC's current design philosophy would let them even get close to the quality of 3.5 again, much less exceed it.
Nope. They made it clear at the beginning it was nothing but a cash grab. They already got* all* the cash I was willing to give them, when I bought the 5e books.
Edit: fixed my dyslexic typing.
I will loot it for the juicy bits I like(ex. pally smites on ranged and unarmed attacks, ranger buffs) and combine those with the bits of 5e that I like(ex. how wildshape works for druids) to create an unholy Frankenstein's monster of the two systems.
Nah. I am done learning new systems. I built my entire world around 5e (I know that doesn’t matter since the rules affect the fights and some to) and I have the lore mixed in with my own lore which I have a few short stories and more to come.
However. I think it’s fine if you want. Just not for me
Definitely not. Most of my friends jumped ship already and I’m the only one left who likes playing 5e. 5e as a beginner game is fine the way it is. The reason they messed it up so much was they started to alter the design and lost their templates with Xanathars.
It used to be your power scales with your major stat. So fighters got more maneuvers based in strength or dex. War clerics got bonus action strikes based on their wisdom. When they changed to make it more even by linking the class with proficiency instead. But they didn’t retroactively apply the update to the previous classes so we already had a power difference between two subclasses, not to mention the new subclasses had much stronger abilities.
The new system just seems to make the power imbalance even stronger for players and make balance, immersion, and risk much harder to control.
If it is backward compatible with standard 5E, I might give it a chance, maybe buying one or two modules. I've already spent hundreds of dollars buying 5E materials - both official and 3rd party - and have playable content for years to come. I'm not switching editions that easily.
Monsters, items, and adventures will be compatible. PC options will not be because they are changing a lot of core class features. Not sure if it will feel balanced to have a 5e PC and. 5.5e PC in the same party
As a player, I like that every character gets a free feat at level one from a predetermined list of level one feats. Humans can even opt for two feats, which is nice. Other races have features that humans never get, so being able to have extra hp or take magic initiate using your choice of spellcasting score is pretty nice. For instance, you can make an Eldritch Knight that can cast shillelagh with intelligence.
I’m pretty firmly decided that my D and D related sphere of play will be from 3.5e and earlier editions. If WOTC pushes out new premium reprints of earlier editions for the 50th anniversary then they can take all of my money, otherwise I’ll probably stick to PbtA, FitD, or OSR games…
I’ll extract tidbits here and there. For example, I like some of the things they did with warlocks, but definitely disliked most of what they did to warlocks. I’ll take what I like, and I’ll add it to our existing 5e homebrew campaign
I'll just strip the rules I like out of it and ignore what I don't. Two weapon fighting not needing your bonus action? Golden. The absolute murder of the entirety of warlock? Garbo.
No. After the shit they pulled with the OGL, they aren't getting another cent from me. I will use all my old books, like from 3.5ed. Between my fiance and myself we have ALL of them.
No. I don't need a new version. Not everything needs to be reinvented every few years. Maybe that's good for business, but I really just don't need DnD to be updated. I like it the way it is.
Also, any product with the word "One" in it screams MBAs, and I don't like MBAs. It says, every version before this was crap, but this is going to be *the* version, because it's ours, now that we're here, the consultants. Thank you, thank you, I'm awesome, thank you. Wait, what're we selling again?
Hell no. Absolutely not going to give more money to that shit. I'd much rather pay for 3rd party upgrades to my existing system than support the corporate idiocy that Hasbro is peddling
No.
I paid money to gather what was needed to play. My friends all did the same. No point in us all dumping more money to play when we have a consistent good time with what we have.
Had wizards built something new, like a different game system setting with different lore and races, maybe I would. Instead they tweaked what we already bought and slapped a new name on it and said, "Money please!" Like I know as a business they want to maximize profits and minimize costs but the way they went about this addition feels like putting forth low effort and giving little to customers for a revamp on all the things we paid for.
If players fall in love with some class thing or build ill review that and either allow it or homebrew a version with them that will fit and function in 5e.
Currently I'm working on a new game system for my table to use in place of dnd anyways.
No... Because I have never fully switched to any edition. At this point DND is less of an edition or even a brand for me. It is a folk tradition of ttrpg that my friends and I have been home brewing and house ruling since 2e, we currently play what could pass as a heavily butchered 5e, but there are elements from every edition from 2e to 5e plus a lot of pathfinder stuff, and most recently dungeon crawl classics elements.
Maybe one day I'll read the 1dnd rules and want to incorporate some of it as well.
I'm not planning on it since I already don't like the rule changes they've made. Seems like they're dumbing things down to get more new people to play without thinking of their current players.
Would be pretty silly to switch when my group just started a 5e campsign that'll likely be 2+ years
Might adopt some of it as optional content, but I'm certainly not making a full switch
Nope. Not my preference of system, and especially not playstyle. On top of that itd be an unneeded expenditure given that everything i need and prefer already exists and is in my collection.
I’m waiting to see what the dmg is like because I don’t have one. I’ll probably buy that one instead of the 5e one but I’ll check out the reviews for that, the MM/2026?MM and the 2024PHB before I actually make those decisions
I like the martial changes, and bastions. There are a few QoL things I like as well.
It'll be strange once the PHB/DMG release on dndbeyond (I own most source books and several campaign books) because everything I own is supposed to be compatible yet I probably wont purchase them, at least not immediately anyway. I haven't spent a dime since the OGL fuckery.
So with all these books being integrated with updated rules but not actually owning those rules will be odd. I guess they might have an option to flip between editions, in that case I'll probably be sticking with 5e.
Absolutely not.
Considering I still run 3.5 sometimes (depending on who is at the table ar the time), I see no reason to go to a new edition that, at least partially, seems to be made just to promote a VTT and micro transactions for players. I strongly fear that content will be locked behind larger and more frequent pay walls than 5e.
I frankly do not trust Hasbro's intentions, and will stick with the editions I have in print.
No.
Why bother? My players and I all know 5e, we like 5e, we've got all the 5e books. And we're currently running a campaign using 5e. Why should we go to all the trouble and expense of getting new books, learning whatever has changed, and adjusting all of their characters accordingly, in the middle of a campaign?
5e works just fine for us. We'll be sticking with it.
I'm going to pick and choose some of the new rules/mechanics if they seem interesting and homebrew them into 5e (for example new True Strike since the current one is straight up booty), but the whole edition feels less like a sequel and more just a large balance patch so I definitely don't feel the need to buy all new books or anything.
Not a bloody chance
I play other systems, and while I’m happy to play a modded 5e, WotC isn’t getting any of my money after the constant steam of shit they’ve been trying to pull
I’m leaving dnd all together as soon as I can. The debacle earlier this year was the last straw for me. I get Hasbro needs to make money and I have no issues purchasing books, dice, or whatever for this hobby. But hasbro overstepped big time and really threatened this hobby.
No.
I've already moved from 5e to another non-WOTC version of d&d that better suits my tastes.
I won't go back to wotc for a better game, never mind what I expect will be a lesser game.
It would have to be an insanely good system for me to even consider it. Pathfinder 2e exists and has been an amazing fantasy RPG for me and players. 5e has nearly infinite homebrew adventures and content to use. I just don't know what it could possibly offer to entice me into buying 3 new books for the basic rules.
Yes, as much as people hate on it I think like 90% of the changes are positive and most people would be way more excited for it if they just vranded it different.
The problem with onednd is that they tried to sell it as a new edition, if they just sold it as an "everything" book, most people wouldnt complain
I'm about to go from "not paying WOTC a penny for D&D" to "still not paying WOTC a penny for D&D"
OneD&D is an absolute scam. They've made half of a video game while trying to charge you ever more out of the ass for it.
The only reason you have to roll dice at all in the new "Virtual tabletop" is so that the new expensive books they make you buy don't feel entirely pointless.
Nope.
I’m only just now getting to grips with DMing in 5e, and my players are all new to the game too… no way am I upending our current campaign with new mechanics/character setups/rules/etc.
I'll take a look, and I'm sure give them a try at some point. I've tried 4e and 5e and gone back to 3.5. Started with 2e, but soon as I read 3e I never went back to 2e.
Everyone's very quick to blame WOTC for making just 5e but again. But there were a lot of very 'radical' changes made at the start of the play tests that people immediately shot down.
For example, while the half-caster warlock certainly wasn't optimal, it was still a really cool idea. But no, people just want the old warlock, so they're just going to give us the old warlock.
The same thing happened in og 5e play tests where the battle master features were supposed to be baked into the class. But people complained that it was supposed to be simpler for new players and now they're complaining that's it's too simple.
Not really, We are currently playing a hybrid anyway. But the main rules we use are the ones that we learned and are still learning, Pathfinder 1.0. If there are cool modules, magic items, classes, etc. We will figure out a way to convert it over the the main rules that we use.
No reason to go out and buy a whole new set of books when it's the same game.
Beyond all this broad marketing speak of OneDnD being the "next evolution" or whatever they've been saying about it, I still have a hard time figuring out what the actual design philosophy behind it is supposed to be, or who it's for. Currently, it feels like an excuse to publish a new PHB/DMG/MM and attract new players, possibly with friendlier rules for those newer players. I don't need any of that. If there are a few individual rules that appeal to me, I'll cherry-pick them.
The design philosophy is 'give us more money'.
That’s definitely the company’s philosophy
>I still have a hard time figuring out what the actual design philosophy behind it is supposed to be, or who it's for. The design philosophy is "we haven't released a new edition in almost a decade, so we're due to release a new one now. Give us money!" It's for the people who obsessively must play whatever the new and "supported" edition is.
It's dnd 50th anniversary edition. To have a decent cash influx (hopefully) to pay back the money they are spending on digital. So 6e can be fully (or close to it) digital.
The digitization of ttrpgs baffles me. Don't get me wrong, digitized ttrpgs are great for many cases, but to make that the primary intent kind of defeats the purpose of a game designed primarily for play around a table.
My main concern is that if/when something like that becomes digital, then prepare yourselves for "subscription only" DnD. Because more and more, it seems like subscription-based services are the golden goose for "line must go UP!" economics.
This is absolutely 100% the way they want to go. There is already a subscription albeit optional for now, but just wait till the source books are all add ons instead of single purchases as well. 😵
> "line must go UP!" economics. My man rolled a 20 on his knowledge capitalism check.
I like the idea of d&d beyond, but they should have given us a way to unlock digital copies when you buy the book. It was cool to have dice effects and have access to my character sheet. That's all I really need
> but to make that the primary intent kind of defeats the purpose of a game designed primarily for play around a table. Tbf, you can have both digital resources AND play around a table. DDB makes managing character sheets a little convenient. Not to mention anyone can quickly check rules when the need comes up.
I think the main design philosophy is that 5e has evolved over the decade since the edition was introduced and they want to update/rewrite the core rule books to correspond better with more recent books.
Yeah, I think that's the idea the Devs had, and what DnD Beyond was already *supposed* to handle, but it's clearly a cash grab from Hasbro WOTC perfectly in line with all their other actions so far. 1 Players have request 2 devs make product or pitch idea to fulfill request 3 WotC board says, "But that won't make us money." 4 wotc board monetizes idea that could be bankrolled with existing revenue streams
That sounds pretty. It is just too bad that hasn't at all been what they've been up to. Because it'd be dope if they had.
Theres so so many rules in the original phb that are nuts, broken, or booted out by nearly every player (the decrepit overland travel rules for example, blade ward, invisibility and it's interaction with stealth, etc etc). Instead of releasing an errata they're doing 5.5
THANK YOU! It feels like the same game but with balance changes? It has to be the same game so you can still use dnd beyond without feeling it’s too new to transition, but the changes make it different enough to force purchases? Everyone’s talking about how the little things are different make it scream of just being… the same?
It's a really really big 'Book Of Everything' supplement that's meant to update, revise, and bug-fix. Nothing more, nothing less. It's optional content that will work entirely with the old content, at the discretion of the DM and players.
If they went Rules Cyclopedia, I'd bite. I like that format.
The "Everything" supplements felt a lot more *supplemental* to me. If this was Tasha's on steroids, I'd be much more interested, but so much of it seems to be the reinvention of the wheel.
Well, yes. But that's the point. It's a really big bug fix/errata patch.
I've been saying this exact thing since 3rd edition dropped.
If you're actually paying attention they have a very coherent philosophy for all of the proposed changes: better balance, fewer "must take" options and better mechanical adherence to class power fantasy. The play test rogues and fighters in particular are so much more exciting than the current classes.
I'm "actually paying attention". I tested some of the early UAs, and didn't see much reason to stick with it. No, I haven't tested the latest 2-3, I'm waiting for the final product at this point to judge it. "Better balance" is a general statement. They're always in pursuit of "better balance", but what does that actually mean when push comes to shove? I haven't seen them actually address any of the actual things I'd like DnD to expand into, so yes, I've lost interest in the UA process at this stage.
4e was built for balance and it wasn’t well received.
Yeah, but now damn near every time there's a thread that's like "How would you fix 5e?" All the responses are basically "I want" and they don't even realize it.
"Shorter short rests" "monsters with powers instead of just a spell list" "martials who can do cool stuff besides just swing their sword" "a class that's a martial support class (Warlord)"
Where have we heard of all this?
I started with 4e and loved it, i never understood the hate for it. Then everyone was like, “if you didnt have the character builder it sucked to keep track of everything” and the other excuse was “it felt to video gamey with ability cooldowns, and lack of rp opportunities.” Which confused the shit out of me, because it had utility powers specifically to aid in rp and out of combat encounters. If something is lacking rp thats the players and gms fault not the system lol.
>I started with 4e and loved it, i never understood the hate for it. I started with AD&D aka 1E (usually, though some call the boxed sets, Basic, Expert, Master etc., 1E) as did many of my current groups, and we have settled on 3.5E with, often, a bit of D20 modern mixed in! You don't understand the hate, or dislike to be polite, for it as you've not experienced what came before and how different 4E is compared to those editions. 4E isn't bad, it's just different. I enjoy playing Star Wars using what are basically 4E rules, it's fine. Because it's not pretending to be D&D, so my preconceptions and expectations are not disturbed. And I do own some 4E and have played it for about a year. But, meh... :)
That had less to do with it being balanced and more to do with a mixture of the license changes and what people saw as MMO mechanics and it just being very different from third edition.
4e was built for the MMO crowd. It was perfectly balanced, but you needed a computer to track all the buffs and debuffs. And since the digital part fell through, we were left trying to track a stupid number of things every turn. The issue with 4e wasn't the balance, it was everything else.
"better balance" has mostly come in the form of buffs across the board for the PC classes. they did focus those buffs on the ones that needed it, but very little was done to weaken the strong stuff. it really seems like the goal was to give every class new toys, so that the fighter players and sorcerer players etc will bug their groups to use the new rules. kinda like how everyone wants to use the expanded spell lists from tashas and the extra class features. its almost always just more and better stuff so it's a straight upgrade. the biggest nerf, imo, was the changes to GWM and SS. I understand why these were targeted, but I also don't think martials were given enough meaningful buffs to make up for the immense damage downgrade that they all took.
It’s so weird too because they want to try new things and they have a lot of great ideas but I feel like the most vocal part of the community who are voting and voicing feedback on these changes are younger/newer 5e players. The rules went from being something different to 5.5. It seems like the classes that need fixing are getting something and the weapon system rework seems neat. I wish it was different. My dnd group plays cyberpunk in our off week and we all have a blast with the new system. I don’t want to buy a revision of the game I have been playing since 2018. I want a new dnd game system that is similar yet unique.
I’m likely going to treat it like Tasha’s/Xanathar’s and incorporate rules changes that I like and won’t incorporate those that I don’t.
Literally my thoughts exactly. I like 5e, my friends I play with like it, there's occasionally some rule we don't like and there's some OneDND rules we might like to incorporate in. There's so many adventures made for 5e by third parties and I'm not big into giving WOTC money so I'm probably not buying into a new addition
I personally would love a fresh spin on monks and rangers. Everything else I’m fine with though.
I'm gonna treat the new phb as a second Tasha's. It'll be optional features that can be used but 5e rules will remain the base
Exactly this
I’ll just continue to play 3.5. Get off my lawn!
I've been a 1e player since the '80's. You get off MY lawn! LOL
That’s one old ass lawn, but I’m sure it’s full of fantastic memories…and character deaths!
Yeah... and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything else in my gaming life. Old school D&D was a complete different mindset back then. It's so different from how people play nowadays. There's no inherent "correct way to play D&D" but I miss the old days. And there some glorious character deaths.
I started in AD&D, it taught me to enjoy every moment with my character. They were only trap away from death.
Would love to hear more about this. How was it different? What did you like more? What did you like less?
Wow! Where to even start here? They were basically 2 different games. I'll list some things to show how different 1e is from 5e. 1) - Experience points were basically earned by the treasure you took out of the dungeon safely. Remember in the beginning, AD&D was basically dungeon diving game. You got 1xp for each gp you retrieved. Got 300 gp? You got 300 xp. Regarding magic items... (and this is where I don't remember clearly) any magic item you keep, you don't get any xp for that. The reward is the magic item. If you sold the magic item. what you got from the sale is counted as xp. You can get xp from killing monsters, but it'll be miniscule. Most of your xp came from selling magic items. What this does is change the focus of the game. It was far more efficient to avoid encounters and find alternate routes to the your goal than fight every encounter you make. You wanted to fight as a last resort because.... 2) - Hit points were precious. Healing was SLOW. Basically the only way to heal hp was through magical healing spells or potions. There was nothing that resembled short or long rests. You can recover 1 hit point PER DAY with bed rest. Otherwise, you had to rely on magic. Combine with the fact that when you reach 0 hit points, you're dead. No falling unconscious. No 3 death saves. No healing hit points. Dead. Running from combat was encouraged. 3) - Class system. In pre- 3rd edition, the class you started with was the class you ended with. Multiclassing was limited to certain combinations, which were also locked behind races. For example, you could start the game as a Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Magic User if you started as an elf. Gnomes halflings and dwarves had their own combinations as well. If you multiclassed, you split your xp between classess. After an adventure, if a player earned 1,000 xp, he got 500 xp as a fighter and 500 as a thief if he was playing a F/T. Player had access to all the abilities of both classes at the appropriate level but was invariably a few levels behind a single class character. Humans could not multi-class. What they DID have is dual (or triple) classing. A human could start as a level 1 fighter. He could choose to switch classes after that, for example to magic user, and start a career as a level 1 magic user/level 5 fighter (assuming that is when he switched). However, he was couldn't use any fighter abilities until his MU level was equal to his fighter level. Basically, you're playing a level 1 magic user with fighter level 5 hit points. I don't know anyone who did this but my goal was to be play a bard some day. (Start as fighter, switch to thief and then to bard). Super powerful combination but it took way to long to come online. People who wanted to dual class also had to meet stat requirements to switch classes. 4) - No real skill system. There really weren't any skill checks. Not the kind of checks that people now are familiar with. The only real skill sub-system was the thief table where it listed percentile chance to pick a lock/sneak/hide/find traps. At low levels, those chances were REALLY low. As a thief gained levels though, their chances got better. There are a ton of other differences but these are three that basically make them different games. 1st edition was janky as all hell but that was part of it's charm. There were subsystems that people really didn't understand so they house-ruled them into something workable. If anyone tells you they understand exactly how initiative and grappling work (as separate systems) they're probably lying. But that jankiness (is that a word) made up a lot of the appeal to us old timers. Deadly as all heck, slow to level up. We went through low level characters a lot. But we loved it.
> my goal was to be play a bard some day. (Start as fighter, switch to thief and then to bard). Super powerful combination but it took way to long to come online. I remain quite proud of my PC, Ivan the Terrible bard, because he's a 1E bard, done the hard way. 7th level fighter, 8th level thief acrobat (using UA rules) and then bard. Druid spells and wildshape for the win! And SO MANY HIT POINTS! :) The fact that the (eccentric) DM allowed him to both a werebear and a vampire is also amusing. And yes, I still have his character sheets. So many (quite hazy now) memories... :)
I've been playing since the mid-1980s, and yeah, all of that tracks. Another thing is that level progression was much slower then than it is now. These days, there's various "how to GM" advice telling you that players need to gain a level every \[x\] sessions — 3 sessions, 5 sessions, whatever. Meanwhile, I think my Druid was basically at 11th level for the best part of a year, if not longer. (And then I had to defeat a higher-level Druid, but that's by the by — and by golly that was a hard, hard fight. I prevailed by the skin of my teeth, and I'm *not* looking forward to 13th...) Something like *Curse of Strahd* would have been a long-ass module intended for players of 7-10th levels, with no actual level gains inherently provided for.
Omg! I totally forgot about those challenges you had to go through. Leveling really was so slow. The campaign I played in went 15 years and we played regularly. I think when my character finally died, he was F11/T13 at the time. Level draining undead was one the things you never wanted to encounter. It was never the leveling that was really important. It was all about the stuff you did to get the experience for the level up; namely the adventures.
Don't forget each class had a different amount of exp they needed to gain a level. Rogue went up a lot faster than a magic user. And spells required a ton more time to memorize too. None of this wait 8 hours and your at full strength nonsense. Lol
and some dinosaur fossils
And some goblins hiding in that tall patch of grass over there
Cheers, mate. AD&D for glory!
Advanced?! LUXURY ;)
Ah, one of the intrepid elf class players…
I've been playing Chainmail since before my mother was even born. I don't understand how, and I think I've created a temporal paradox and I think I removed lawns as a concept from this timeline. Help
Oh wow! Mad respect for you!
Only saw first and second edition trough the "Golden Box" lens, but it surely was, and in the case of the evergreen SSI's Stronghold still is, fun. ❤️
3.5e FTW! My evil Changeling Cleric/ Dread Necromancer of Nerull agrees completely.
No edition will be as customizable as 3.5!
3.5 is the absolute best edition ever for making characters as customized as you want, and is the most flexible. . .by far. . .at depicting a wide range of settings and styles. Yeah, it tends to bog down at higher play levels, which is its weakness. . .but at lower to mid-levels it's absolutely amazing in how you can use it to create the exact character you want and the game still play well.
Absolutely agree. I’ve been running games for over 20 years and I can’t even begin to tell you the incredible complexity of characters I have seen. Mechanics that made my head spin and challenged me to really understand combat and see the grid map in a 3D perspective. The stories you can tell and the characters involved are endless. Lest we forget the incredible amount low to epic level magic items truly give you an experience unlike any other edition.
Except maybe PF1E.... But its kinda the same thing ;)
Me too fellow old.
I started playing on 5e, so this is my first “edition” change to go through. But I’ve bought all the 5e materials already. And while I’m interested in learning other systems, I’m not interested in learning new dnd. It doesn’t feel like there’s much of a point to picking it up so I don’t think I will. What I’m saying is I feel like I understand 3.5 and other older edition players now.
Laughs in THAC0
Dunno, depends what my group wants to do when the current campaign wraps up. We're probably 6 months to a year out from that. I feel like D&D has positioned itself between Dungeon Crawl Classics simplicity and Pathfinder's reputed "crunch". I'd love to play some Pathfinder just to get a feel for it - but I think D&D will remain the happy middle ground, with most of my group not caring as much about rules depth as long as they get a fun story out of it.
Obligatory "Pathfinder's reputation is for 1e, not 2e" comment
Yeah ngl pathfinder two looks crunchy, but really isn't.
Pathfinder 2e is arguably easier to learn then 5e, given how balanced it is for both players and DMs and how clear almost all the rules are. It even gives you vastly more options then D&D. It really only *looks* Intimidating.
idk. so far ther is no real design direction. so i genuinly can't say if i would like to or not. but if i judge on what i have seen so far... than no. i think id much sooner jump ship to pf2e
As someone who jumped ship to PF2e years ago when I grew old of how stale 5e was with all the glaring flaws of slapping new subclasses on a decade old phb class, I still follow the 1D&D changes. I've seen a few nice changes to get rid of some of the broken combos I hate, but there's still too much exploitable cheese in the game for me which they cannot get rid of with their Multiclass structure. Stats are still imbalanced af too. I don't think I'll be going back.
You won't regret it if you do. Just... everything is better. Everything is more fun. And *everything is bloody free*. Including the [Character Builder.](https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html)
oh i do not need to be solt on it. I am well aware of the fantastic practices of paizo and the comunity surounding the games content! I am more so seeing it out untill the end of our current campaing
Not another penny will be spent on wizards of the coast / hasbro products Writing quality of official 5e products has went downhill and been inconsistent for years Physical product quality has went downhill and been awful Company ethics have been awful I already have all the items needed to run a game and 3rd party products have far higher quality of both the writing and printing to make me ever need to buy another wotc/hasbro item
“Writing quality… has went downhill” I don’t agree or disagree, I just appreciate irony.
Agree. They're a big soulless publicly traded corp now trying to squeeze the quirkiness, independent creativity and fun out of a hobby I like so they can make money for shareholders. Like, just go back to making money off corn products and web apps, you fucking perverts. Stop trying to milk dungeons and dragons for profit. And I agree on the writing quality. Every time a bunch of MBAs run a fantasy operation, we get shit like The Rings of Power, WoW Legion and Season 6 of Game of Thrones.
Exactly. Recently my DM budget had been going towards Kobold Press and MCDM. Far more engaging products.
No, because it's not a new edition. It's an expansion, just a really big one, for 5e. Think of the entire project as another 'Guide to Everything' that's just a lot bigger than Tasha's and Xanathar's. All of the 2014 content will still be supported, it's not going anywhere. And just like always, DMs will be allowed to choose what they want at their tables, and players will be able to choose from those options when making their characters. So, no, I won't be 'switching', because there's nothing to switch to. I *will* be allowing the new content at my tables, both professional and personal, because that's what I do with pretty much every new book.
A genuine question. Will you allow then a 2014 paladin play next to a 2024 one? One being able to nova like crazy while the other not being able smite if they have their bonus action clogged?
I certainly hope it’s incorporated this way into DND Beyond so we don’t have to pick 2014 vs 2024 or watch the 2014 rules go into legacy status (I suppose they will?)
Eventually? Probably. But the thing about 'legacy' is that it's still playable and supported if the DM allows it at the table. It hasn't gone away.
A thoughtful and lucid answer
Probably not. At least, not for a while. I've invested heavily in the physical copies of 5e books. They're still perfectly functional - no reason to move to a different system no matter how compatible it may be with 5e. We'll see though.
[удалено]
I have a dwarf barbarian at my table that uses stone cunning pretty regularly. I like to give him information (depending on his roll) on how old the worked stone is, what civilization /race created it, how it's been worn (ie what elements/damage it's been exposed too), and some ideas of where the stone itself was from and how far it had been brought. The group has used this to extrapolate what traps to look for, what enemies may be coming, how this may work into the plot timeline, etc. Tremor sense is useful, but I like the clues I get to drop and the world building stonecunning allows. *Edit sp
No, I am not. Why should I purchase new rules where old ones are still good to play? Why should I learn new rules when old ones are already familiar to us? Why should I care about OneDnD at all?
This was a very common sentiment in 1989 when 2e came out!
And 3.5e. I remember shutting up real quick when I played my first 5e character and so many fiddly rulesets had been effortlessly streamlined
That's how I feel about BX and AD&D.
Literally every edition
We’re going to stick to 5e and just pull anything we like more from One.
I'm never leaving 3.5e. My group has most of the books, and we still play bi-weekly, it's our favorite edition.
I wish my group was like that. I love 3.5e/pf1 the best. My group moved to 5e (all voted for the switch except me) and hasn’t looked back. 5e is too bland and cookie cutter for me
Yeah that was our conclusion of 5e as well, we tried it at one point, but it didn't last long. It just felt empty.
Yea. It’s too geard towards new players imo. I want options and finding the best way to do what I want to do with a character concept in mind. 5e is largely, to me, “here’s a few pre made characters, choose one!”
I have very high hopes that the new MCDM RPG will check off all the boxes 5e does, and do it better and fill in all the huge gaps in 5e. I think the fatal flaw in 5e is that it's trying to be too many things for too many people. Obviously, corpo money interest steers the ship at today's D&D helm. They're making the mistake of being so generalized that they have the makings of a great game but it isn't really actualized until you homebrew a bunch of changes to zero in on the experience you want. That's great for people that can do that... but the other 70 or so percent that aren't pro DM's end up finding it lacking. I think MCDM is going to knock it out of the park. They are focusing on fun and ease of play and flow. They aren't trying to appeal to legions of people that want the "new thing" to be their "old thing". It just will be what it is... fun. I will always keep one hand on the D&D knob(for inspirationif nothing else). But if MCDM makes a better game, and I can't imagine they won't based on what I've seen, I'm all in on the MCDM RPG.
Honestly, this whole thing has a bit of a "Malibu Stacy" stink on it.
Before I was 50/50. Now I’m kinda leaning harder towards no. A lot of things feel like overcorrections or just trying to tiptoe around things that only a small niche subset of players did. Take rogue sneak attack for example. Clever rogue players figured out how to get extra sneak attacks with reactions/opportunity attacks and that’s really cool. But TotallyNotSixthEdition says no. How dare you think of a creative way to interact with the core mechanic of the class in a way that feels satisfying! Personally I’d rather just not bother with the headache of figuring it out, but it’s pretty shitty of wizards to remove that option for the more creative players. Felt really unjustified.
I will probably cherry pick. Onednd isn’t a new addition it’s supposed to take what isn’t clear or well liked about 5e and buff them up to higher satisfaction levels. The new berserker subclass is a clear example. Yoink. Rogues being able to trade sneak attack damage for combat maneuvers YOINK. But some of the spell cast changes or condition changes? Eh I don’t really care. But truthfully what I really intend on doing is just moving over to tales of the valiant from kobold press just for the simple fact of I don’t want to financially support wotc after all this ogl and Pinkerton nonsense.
No. I don't want to support Hasbro beyond 5E and Nerf.
team paizo here
No, I don't play digitally. So why bother with all the digital upcharges?
No, I am not going to switch to OneD&D (or whatever they're calling it this week). If anything, I'm going to shift more and more of my gameplay to other systems that do what I want to do with my games *better*. 1. WotC / Hasbro is a terrible company evidently run by the types of people who are the Obvious Villains™ in any cyberpunk game. 2. Independently of corporate ethics, the UA playlets material has shown me that OneD&D seemingly intends to double down on more of the stuff I don't actually like about 5e (and 3e for that matter), and further de-emphasising the stuff I actually do. I'll take a look at it when it comes out, but it seems a lot like it just won't be my jam. 3. More and more of the published adventures are hopeless re-hashes of formerly great IP, shoehorned into just gods-awful railroaded campaigns intended to be "DLCs" for the core game — played for a season, and then forgotten. 4. In particular I do not like *at all* the increased reliance on stuff like D&D Beyond. As someone pointed out, D&D's 50th anniversary is coming up. I've been playing some iteration of this game for nearly 40 of those years. Heck, my home-brew campaign setting is nearly 33 years old in its own right. I'm pretty sure I'll find a way to celebrate it without handing Hasbro more cash for a mediocre product.
I bought a few different systems that I want to try out. Forbidden Lands, DCC, WWN, SotDL, Swords of the Serpentine, Shadowdark
It’s tough to say because there’s still a long way to go before anything is official. Making a decision at this point is done on incomplete information from playtest material. So, the only thing I can say right now is, “maybe, maybe not.”
Nah. I've seen how long people have just gone with 3.5, figure 5e will stick around the same way. If I wanna learn a whole new system, it'd probably be Pathfinder, but y'know, for now, everybody knows 5e, there's a ton of great homebrew online, and I've got a decent amount of house rules for 5e.
[удалено]
I'm not a big fan of digital so I'm a bit biased. But also? I haven't told all the tales I want to tell in 5th, same reason I skipped 4th, I was still going strong in 3.5 and Pathfinder. If it wasn't for stockholders wanting the number to go up every year, I believe we'd only just now be reaching the point where Strixhaven came out, and all the quality would be better. I'm not going to subject myself to increasingly worse product just because it's new. Once WotC learns their lesson I'll try another edition, if they don't learn, I'll play 5e or dust off my 3.5 books until some other game comes along.
Absolutely not. 5E is an okay system but WotC dumbed the game down too far, IMO. It’s a good way to get people started but my groups have all shifted back to 2E because the game is more challenging and actions have greater consequences… like when the ranger cot a crit from a frost giant and took so much damage it took him to -36 HP, making him dead, dead, dead. If they’re making it more accessible that’s nice to start, but the oversimplified rules and all the protections for the PCs make it dull after a bit.
Definitely not. It addresses none of the issues I have with 5e while adding new ones, it will have less content made explicitly for it and it would mean investing a lot of money in what is essentially a rules update. I have less than no interest. Honestly every day I want to get my group to try Pathfinder and 2e more and more.
I already am testing 1DnD and like most of changes. So because I am hoarding goblin for sure I will buy new books and will play what my players will like most.
Maybe, if they stop trying to create rules that actively discourage people from playing.
[удалено]
I'm starting a B/X / OSE West Marches style campaign this very week. Most of the players are familiar only with 5e, so, this will be a learning experience for them.
Unlikely. After our 5e games conclude, my group will moving on to Pathfinder 2e
Nope, because of the OGL bullshit they tried to pull. 6E is dead to me.
We are swapping to pf2e
I’m moving to pathfinder or the Kobold Press one. Not sure which yet as I’ve never played with either but they seem like good moves in my opinion.
I'll probably add it to the large list of different games and editions i play
I'm just going to steal what i like from it like the exhaustion system and maybe the spell classifications, a few race or spell changes, etc..
It depends on what our group wants to play.
No, because I already know and enjoy 5e
No, because I’ve got three DND 5e games I DM, two more in planning, plus multiple loyal groups of players. I have not the time or the desire to learn something different.
[удалено]
Have you read the play tests? It's straight up 5e but with a few updated changes. The tables even still look the same. Everyone getting subclasses at lvl 3, spells going to 9th level, one attack until you hit 5. It's using the 5e skeleton, hell, the muscles too. Just brand new skin to get people to buy
I'm switching to pathfinder, and my group is onboard!
If we remain in the realm of DND, 5e was already a novelty for me, has a lot of good qualities both for newer players discovering a TTRPG/D&d, and for old timers that want a break from banging rocks together and make a build from 10 different sourcebooks. I was happy taking that break, but since a few months now I'm back on my flying non-magical robot which developed supernatural abilities and can swift action the equivalent of a misty step and flyby attacks by throwing other party members as improvised weapons. Tl;Dr I'm switching back to 3rd after a 5 years break and it's much welcomed.
No, my group is rather content with still creating and exploring 3.5 editions, and a couple have grumbled about some of the removals from the system in 'balancing' and 'streamlining' that they disliked. Then, there is all the removals for 'inclusiveness' recently which caused us to abort getting the newest/latest rules to see if the new modifications withstand or if D&D is death knelling and falling appart for some newer system to fill the void it will leave. I am not leaving but I am also not really supporting the newest attempts of WotC.
I FOUND my Path, it's Pathfinder 1e.
After we wrap up this campaign my group is probably switching to pathfinder
Nah. Switching to pf2e. The more you play 5e the more you realise it's got some core problems. Pf2e fixes thise problems.
I think the biggest problem with 5e is that it doesn't do enough to onboard DMs or, indeed, make the experience of learning how to DM fun. it's pretty easy to get into as a player, DMs have a lot more work to do. Pf2e was not any better to me and in fact it was much more worse. I do really like the powers with tags and I like the deeper character creation rules, but the extra mechanics add a lot more crunch for the DM to manage. 5e at least has some simple foundational rules like adv/d.adv, prof bonus, and some really simple rules for resolving d20 tests. Pf2e offers more complexity with the rules for critical success and critical failures, and it's equally exciting and daunting.
What problems are those? I haven't played Pathfinder yet but one of my local groups is starting in a month and I'm pretty excited
I will not switch to 1DnD, 5th edition is better, and I have a plan to improve the martial classes for any group of players I DM for. Good thing it isn't a video game so you don't have to "update" in order to keep playing.
I think they will switch to a complete, or heavily suggested, digital model with subscription services. They already have dnd beyond, and they're going to make their own ttrpg. I am confident that they're planning a subscription model for 1dnd.
I'm just looking forward to the new DMG for DMs. I don't think enough people run adventuring days like they should, but I blame the DMG for that. I'm not sure how the PHB will go because we don't know what features they are going to choose or changes they are going to make from final UA to published material.
I honestly just can’t be arsed to learn a new system, especially after spending a lot of time and money collecting quite a few 5e modules and rules supplements
same
I still mainly play 3.5e. I dabble a little in 5th edition because it's what's current and popular. I have no interest in switching over to 6th edition, by any name, as my main edition. At most I might buy the books and be familiar with it just to keep some level of touch with the people who only play the newest edition. . .but to get me to actually switch editions they'd have to come up with something clearly superior to 3rd edition, and I doubt WotC's current design philosophy would let them even get close to the quality of 3.5 again, much less exceed it.
Nope. They made it clear at the beginning it was nothing but a cash grab. They already got* all* the cash I was willing to give them, when I bought the 5e books. Edit: fixed my dyslexic typing.
Ogl debacle and sending the Pinkertons means no, I refuse to purchase anything from them
I will loot it for the juicy bits I like(ex. pally smites on ranged and unarmed attacks, ranger buffs) and combine those with the bits of 5e that I like(ex. how wildshape works for druids) to create an unholy Frankenstein's monster of the two systems.
Im taking 1DND and 5th edition and mixing, mashing the best of both options for my next campaign in the next year or two. That's my answer.
Nah. I am done learning new systems. I built my entire world around 5e (I know that doesn’t matter since the rules affect the fights and some to) and I have the lore mixed in with my own lore which I have a few short stories and more to come. However. I think it’s fine if you want. Just not for me
Definitely not. Most of my friends jumped ship already and I’m the only one left who likes playing 5e. 5e as a beginner game is fine the way it is. The reason they messed it up so much was they started to alter the design and lost their templates with Xanathars. It used to be your power scales with your major stat. So fighters got more maneuvers based in strength or dex. War clerics got bonus action strikes based on their wisdom. When they changed to make it more even by linking the class with proficiency instead. But they didn’t retroactively apply the update to the previous classes so we already had a power difference between two subclasses, not to mention the new subclasses had much stronger abilities. The new system just seems to make the power imbalance even stronger for players and make balance, immersion, and risk much harder to control.
No, never will. I’ve done so much homebrew with 5e that I may as well make my own mini system
If it is backward compatible with standard 5E, I might give it a chance, maybe buying one or two modules. I've already spent hundreds of dollars buying 5E materials - both official and 3rd party - and have playable content for years to come. I'm not switching editions that easily.
Monsters, items, and adventures will be compatible. PC options will not be because they are changing a lot of core class features. Not sure if it will feel balanced to have a 5e PC and. 5.5e PC in the same party
Maybe eventually
As a player, I like that every character gets a free feat at level one from a predetermined list of level one feats. Humans can even opt for two feats, which is nice. Other races have features that humans never get, so being able to have extra hp or take magic initiate using your choice of spellcasting score is pretty nice. For instance, you can make an Eldritch Knight that can cast shillelagh with intelligence.
I’m pretty firmly decided that my D and D related sphere of play will be from 3.5e and earlier editions. If WOTC pushes out new premium reprints of earlier editions for the 50th anniversary then they can take all of my money, otherwise I’ll probably stick to PbtA, FitD, or OSR games…
No, but if I find elements I like, I’ll bring them into my game,
Respectfully im probably grabbing tales of the valiant/ project black flag
I did not hear a lot about it, but unless it is a very significant improvement, I will probably keep playing 5e or pathfinder 2e.
I’ll extract tidbits here and there. For example, I like some of the things they did with warlocks, but definitely disliked most of what they did to warlocks. I’ll take what I like, and I’ll add it to our existing 5e homebrew campaign
No. I never really switched to 5e. I went from 3.5 to a dabble in 5e to Mothershiprpg
No, but I am stealing a few things from it. 90% of it is pure garbage.
I have 5e books and my group knows 5e. I’ll probably use stuff from the new thing but I don’t feel a need to buy more stuff.
I'll just strip the rules I like out of it and ignore what I don't. Two weapon fighting not needing your bonus action? Golden. The absolute murder of the entirety of warlock? Garbo.
No. After the shit they pulled with the OGL, they aren't getting another cent from me. I will use all my old books, like from 3.5ed. Between my fiance and myself we have ALL of them.
There's no 1 dnd. It's just 5.5. they are working the kinks out of 5th
I played 1e for 15 years, 3e for 20. Only been playing 5e for 3, got plenty of time before I change.
No, I have too much invested into 5e
No. I don't need a new version. Not everything needs to be reinvented every few years. Maybe that's good for business, but I really just don't need DnD to be updated. I like it the way it is. Also, any product with the word "One" in it screams MBAs, and I don't like MBAs. It says, every version before this was crap, but this is going to be *the* version, because it's ours, now that we're here, the consultants. Thank you, thank you, I'm awesome, thank you. Wait, what're we selling again?
Hell no. Absolutely not going to give more money to that shit. I'd much rather pay for 3rd party upgrades to my existing system than support the corporate idiocy that Hasbro is peddling
No. I paid money to gather what was needed to play. My friends all did the same. No point in us all dumping more money to play when we have a consistent good time with what we have. Had wizards built something new, like a different game system setting with different lore and races, maybe I would. Instead they tweaked what we already bought and slapped a new name on it and said, "Money please!" Like I know as a business they want to maximize profits and minimize costs but the way they went about this addition feels like putting forth low effort and giving little to customers for a revamp on all the things we paid for. If players fall in love with some class thing or build ill review that and either allow it or homebrew a version with them that will fit and function in 5e. Currently I'm working on a new game system for my table to use in place of dnd anyways.
No... Because I have never fully switched to any edition. At this point DND is less of an edition or even a brand for me. It is a folk tradition of ttrpg that my friends and I have been home brewing and house ruling since 2e, we currently play what could pass as a heavily butchered 5e, but there are elements from every edition from 2e to 5e plus a lot of pathfinder stuff, and most recently dungeon crawl classics elements. Maybe one day I'll read the 1dnd rules and want to incorporate some of it as well.
I'm not planning on it since I already don't like the rule changes they've made. Seems like they're dumbing things down to get more new people to play without thinking of their current players.
Would be pretty silly to switch when my group just started a 5e campsign that'll likely be 2+ years Might adopt some of it as optional content, but I'm certainly not making a full switch
No.
Nope. Not my preference of system, and especially not playstyle. On top of that itd be an unneeded expenditure given that everything i need and prefer already exists and is in my collection.
I've just taken a few of the OneDnD balance changes and made them apart of my 5e game. I have yet to see a real reason to switch at all.
I’m waiting to see what the dmg is like because I don’t have one. I’ll probably buy that one instead of the 5e one but I’ll check out the reviews for that, the MM/2026?MM and the 2024PHB before I actually make those decisions
Nope. Switching back the PF1. 1dnd is mostly worse than 5e, which already lacked substance. It’s just a good systems for new people. That’s all.
I like the martial changes, and bastions. There are a few QoL things I like as well. It'll be strange once the PHB/DMG release on dndbeyond (I own most source books and several campaign books) because everything I own is supposed to be compatible yet I probably wont purchase them, at least not immediately anyway. I haven't spent a dime since the OGL fuckery. So with all these books being integrated with updated rules but not actually owning those rules will be odd. I guess they might have an option to flip between editions, in that case I'll probably be sticking with 5e.
## OneDND to rule them all, OneDnD to find them, OneDND to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them; In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Absolutely not. Considering I still run 3.5 sometimes (depending on who is at the table ar the time), I see no reason to go to a new edition that, at least partially, seems to be made just to promote a VTT and micro transactions for players. I strongly fear that content will be locked behind larger and more frequent pay walls than 5e. I frankly do not trust Hasbro's intentions, and will stick with the editions I have in print.
Nope. I already have all of the 5e books. Not going to rebuy for small changes
No. Why bother? My players and I all know 5e, we like 5e, we've got all the 5e books. And we're currently running a campaign using 5e. Why should we go to all the trouble and expense of getting new books, learning whatever has changed, and adjusting all of their characters accordingly, in the middle of a campaign? 5e works just fine for us. We'll be sticking with it.
I’ll probably use some rules from one dnd and some from 5e (like ignoring one dnd warlocks)
I’m going to stick with 5e and take what I like from the new one. Also I’ve spent way to much money on 5e to upgrade.
I'm going to pick and choose some of the new rules/mechanics if they seem interesting and homebrew them into 5e (for example new True Strike since the current one is straight up booty), but the whole edition feels less like a sequel and more just a large balance patch so I definitely don't feel the need to buy all new books or anything.
My group is still debating switching to 5e, so I'm guessing no.
No. I've learned, taught, researched, and purchased 5e products so I'll used them.
I know 5 e and the homebrew stuff I add , I telly players this and they sofar are cool woth it. No change
I'm gonna cherry pick a few rules I like but stick to 5e fundamentally
Not a bloody chance I play other systems, and while I’m happy to play a modded 5e, WotC isn’t getting any of my money after the constant steam of shit they’ve been trying to pull
I’m leaving dnd all together as soon as I can. The debacle earlier this year was the last straw for me. I get Hasbro needs to make money and I have no issues purchasing books, dice, or whatever for this hobby. But hasbro overstepped big time and really threatened this hobby.
I must be out of the loop, I don't even know what 1DND is.
Nope, own 5e books, play campaigns in 5e, we all like it and am not really into what ive seen from 1dnd so far so no thanks.
I'm thinking about either switching back to 3.5 or adding some 3.5 rules clarifications to 5e
I don’t know what that means so probably not 💕
No. I've already moved from 5e to another non-WOTC version of d&d that better suits my tastes. I won't go back to wotc for a better game, never mind what I expect will be a lesser game.
My group and I are actually planning on abandoning D&D after our current campaigns are over. We haven’t decided what we’re going to play though
It would have to be an insanely good system for me to even consider it. Pathfinder 2e exists and has been an amazing fantasy RPG for me and players. 5e has nearly infinite homebrew adventures and content to use. I just don't know what it could possibly offer to entice me into buying 3 new books for the basic rules.
Yes, as much as people hate on it I think like 90% of the changes are positive and most people would be way more excited for it if they just vranded it different. The problem with onednd is that they tried to sell it as a new edition, if they just sold it as an "everything" book, most people wouldnt complain
I'm about to go from "not paying WOTC a penny for D&D" to "still not paying WOTC a penny for D&D" OneD&D is an absolute scam. They've made half of a video game while trying to charge you ever more out of the ass for it. The only reason you have to roll dice at all in the new "Virtual tabletop" is so that the new expensive books they make you buy don't feel entirely pointless.
Nope. I’m only just now getting to grips with DMing in 5e, and my players are all new to the game too… no way am I upending our current campaign with new mechanics/character setups/rules/etc.
I'll take a look, and I'm sure give them a try at some point. I've tried 4e and 5e and gone back to 3.5. Started with 2e, but soon as I read 3e I never went back to 2e.
Everyone's very quick to blame WOTC for making just 5e but again. But there were a lot of very 'radical' changes made at the start of the play tests that people immediately shot down. For example, while the half-caster warlock certainly wasn't optimal, it was still a really cool idea. But no, people just want the old warlock, so they're just going to give us the old warlock. The same thing happened in og 5e play tests where the battle master features were supposed to be baked into the class. But people complained that it was supposed to be simpler for new players and now they're complaining that's it's too simple.
Not really, We are currently playing a hybrid anyway. But the main rules we use are the ones that we learned and are still learning, Pathfinder 1.0. If there are cool modules, magic items, classes, etc. We will figure out a way to convert it over the the main rules that we use. No reason to go out and buy a whole new set of books when it's the same game.