# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  One D&D Survey Results and The Future of One D&D

## Oramac

New video is out for OneD&D. Also, its description states that the new playtest material will be released tomorrow. 

https://youtu.be/1kLAwL9yAtA

----------


## EggKookoo

For those not wanting to go over to YT, I swiped the first TLDR comment from one Cameron Scarlett.




> Almost everything scored really highHighest Scoring thing: Feats from Backgrounds at Level 1Lowest Scoring thing: Highly Experimental "D20 Test" Rules where 1 is always a fail and 20 is always a successOther low scoring (60% range) things: New Dragonborn and ArdlingNext UA has new versions of the Dragonborn and Ardling (Dragonborn specifically getting Breath Weapon changes)Clarification that UA Dragonborn race can be played alongside other existing Dragonborn races, they don't replace anythingNext UA will include "A new version of the Cleric" (Last UA drop was very large, they're going for smaller installments now, will be followed by the other members of the Priest group, the Druid and Paladin)Warrior group will also include new Weapon options for certain types of characters ("whole new ways to use weapons")New "Home Base" rules, recurring downtime rules, called the "Bastion" systemEldritch Blast has not been removed, but it doesn't exist on any of the new spell lists. More info when the Warlock arrives.Removal of the Thief's access to "Use an Object" with Cunning Action was intentional. It's a mechanic they refer to as a "Mother May I" mechanic, which depends heavily on DM approval or buy-in to function properly, and could be frustrating or unsatisfying, or slow down the game, and create an endless stream of questions regarding specific use cases. This is part of a larger effort to clarify rules. May return with some changes.On GWM/SS changes: The penalty to accuracy was too small, especially at high levels, to justify that large of a damage bonus. They want the Warrior class to rely on their Class Features (new weapon options are mentioned) to increase their damage output. They don't want any one feat to feel mandatory in order to do a significant amount of damage.Some "juicy" stuff coming for Warrior group for dealing damage.From the video description: "The document on December 1st is the third in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Players Handbook". Looks like new UA drops tomorrow?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> For those not wanting to go over to YT, I swiped the first TLDR comment from one Cameron Scarlett.





> Clarification that UA Dragonborn race can be played alongside other existing Dragonborn races, they don't replace anything


So now _how many_ different (mechanically, not thematically or in-universe) versions of Dragonborns are there?

PHB, UA, Fizbann's....am I missing anything?

As for the other parts...

I'm in rough philosophical agreement that having classes depend mostly on class features (rather than feats, etc) for power is a good thing. I'll reserve judgement until I see their implementation. My hopes aren't high because I haven't liked much of the implementation details they've presented so far even when I agreed with the (apparent) philosophical underpinnings.

----------


## Hael

Theyve been getting away from the ask the DM rules for awhile now.  Theres pros and cons to that sort of thing.

Contrast something like the star druid with the illusionist wizard subclass.  The former is well designed, but provides pretty straightforward but relevant mechanics.  The latter is also (arguably) well designed, but it relies on a lot of player creativity and weird bendy rule interactions with illusion spells and likely plays completely differently table to table.

The latter has a higher ceiling for potentially memorable events, but of course is almost impossible to balance and might also lead to some pretty forgettable play without DM buy in.

I personally like a mix of the two.  If things are too boxed in, its going to start feeling to much like 4e.

----------


## OldTrees1

> For those not wanting to go over to YT, I swiped the first TLDR comment from one Cameron Scarlett.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				11 Removal of the Thief's access to "Use an Object" with Cunning Action was intentional. It's a mechanic they refer to as a "Mother May I" mechanic, which depends heavily on DM approval or buy-in to function properly, and could be frustrating or unsatisfying, or slow down the game, and create an endless stream of questions regarding specific use cases. This is part of a larger effort to clarify rules. May return with some changes.


Oh no! This non spellcaster feature is only half baked and thus leads to "Mother May I". Better throw the baby out with the bathwater and remove the feature rather than improve the design.

Yeah, I am not impressed by this design attitude. Hopefully they upgrade that "may return with some changes" to "will return with some changes", just like they upgraded it from "won't return" to "maybe return" in light of the questioning and feedback.

----------


## Oramac

> Theyve been getting away from the ask the DM rules for awhile now.  Theres pros and cons to that sort of thing.
> 
> Contrast something like the star druid with the illusionist wizard subclass.  The former is well designed, but provides pretty straightforward but relevant mechanics.  The latter is also (arguably) well designed, but it relies on a lot of player creativity and weird bendy rule interactions with illusion spells and likely plays completely differently table to table.
> 
> The latter has a higher ceiling for potentially memorable events, but of course is almost impossible to balance and might also lead to some pretty forgettable play without DM buy in.
> 
> *I personally like a mix of the two*


My emphasis added. 

I agree. There are times when I think that some rules or features should be "intentionally vague" to facilitate that high ceiling, like with the illusionist. That said, those should be comparatively rare, imo.




> Oh no! This non spellcaster feature is only half baked and thus leads to "Mother May I". Better throw the baby out with the bathwater and remove the feature rather than improve the design.
> 
> Yeah, I am not impressed by this design attitude.


It wasn't in the TL;DR, but he did specifically mention that they want to redo and improve those features.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Personally, I think the game would be a lot better off if _more_ mechanics were fuzzier. One of the main reasons spells are out of balance is that they're these nice little "it just works" effects. No negotiation, it's just "it works." And that pushes everyone into a "find button, press button, win" mentality regardless of how well that fits (or doesn't fit) the narrative.

There does need to be a mix, I agree. For me, things that are expected to happen all the time (frequently during a game) should be well defined and have as few points of variability as possible. Things like "how do you make a weapon attack and what does it mean when it hits" Things like movement (including jumping, swimming, and climbing). But those necessarily abstract away from the fiction quite a lot.

In this particular case, they'd have been better served by defining what it means to "use an object" (which would also clarify the Interact with an Object pseudo-action).

----------


## Psyren

> So now _how many_ different (mechanically, not thematically or in-universe) versions of Dragonborns are there?
> 
> PHB, UA, Fizbann's....am I missing anything?
> 
> As for the other parts...
> 
> I'm in rough philosophical agreement that having classes depend mostly on class features (rather than feats, etc) for power is a good thing. I'll reserve judgement until I see their implementation. My hopes aren't high because I haven't liked much of the implementation details they've presented so far even when I agreed with the (apparent) philosophical underpinnings.


I was actually working on my own summary because the quoted one, while helpful, is still missing crucial context from Crawford.

Specifically, for Dragonborn - it actually scored _lower_ than Ardling in the survey, surprising them (they knew Ardling would be controversial) and Crawford determined that was purely because people hate the 1-Action Breath Weapon. He teased that they'll be getting a new version of the breath weapon in a future UA, one that gets some kind of boost at 5th level. My guess is that it will remain 1 action but then you can replace an attack with it once you have the Extra Attack feature.

As for Ardling - while it scored low it still cleared the threshold of "keep it in the game." From the written feedback the main issue people had was that it was trying to be both Tiefling Counterpart and Beast Man and not really excelling at either, so their plan is to push it more towards the latter. He stressed that Aasimar is in MPMM and thus will still be in the game, which sounds to me like Aasimar will still not be core.




> Personally, I think the game would be a lot better off if _more_ mechanics were fuzzier. One of the main reasons spells are out of balance is that they're these nice little "it just works" effects. No negotiation, it's just "it works." And that pushes everyone into a "find button, press button, win" mentality regardless of how well that fits (or doesn't fit) the narrative.
> 
> There does need to be a mix, I agree. For me, things that are expected to happen all the time (frequently during a game) should be well defined and have as few points of variability as possible. Things like "how do you make a weapon attack and what does it mean when it hits" Things like movement (including jumping, swimming, and climbing). But those necessarily abstract away from the fiction quite a lot.
> 
> In this particular case, they'd have been better served by defining what it means to "use an object" (which would also clarify the Interact with an Object pseudo-action).


This is another example where the quote doesn't provide enough context. Crawford's definition of Mother-May-I is *not* the same as the Playground's.

When Crawford says he's against MMI mechanics, it's not that he's against any fuzzy features that might be open to interpretation; rather, what he's against are features where you have to stop play and ask the DM to work with you before you can use them. The examples Crawford gave beside Use An Object include the Wild Magic Sorcerer's "hey can I get a surge?" and the PHB Ranger "gosh I sure wish we could get lost and ambushed while tracking some creatures so I feel useful."

Similarly, Use An Object is not clear which items, even just in the PHB equipment chapter, it applies to, and that made the thief inconsistent. Can a Thief write a letter as a bonus action? Can they dig a hole? Erect a tent? Lob acid? Hammer in pitons? Go fishing? Crawford's right, none of it is clear.

----------


## Oramac

> which sounds to me like Aasimar will still not be core.


Which is fine, I think, but I'm going to be really pissed if Ardling is core and Aasimar isn't.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Which is fine, I think, but I'm going to be really pissed if Ardling is core and Aasimar isn't.


Furries are a more influential customer base than people who identify as angel-kin?

Disclaimer--there are other reasons to prefer one to the other. I'm just going for a cheap joke here.


-------

On a more serious note, the most insulting part of all of this is the insistence on just conveying this information in videos rather than _also_ giving us transcripts. For obviously prepared remarks like this, a transcript should be trivial. And way more accessible to a lot of folks as well as being searchable/linkable much better.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Furries are a more influential customer base than people who identify as angel-kin? 
> Disclaimer--there are other reasons to prefer one to the other. I'm just going for a cheap joke here.


 If aasimar are not core and tiefling is core, they are simply wrong. (Ardling is still a terrible idea) 



> On a more serious note, the most insulting part of all of this is the insistence on just conveying this information in videos rather than _also_ giving us transcripts. For obviously prepared remarks like this, a transcript should be trivial. And way more accessible to a lot of folks as well as being searchable/linkable much better.


 Yeah.  In spades. 



> Almost everything scored really high


Sad to hear that the received survey results trended towars fanbois. 



> Highest Scoring thing: Feats from Backgrounds at Level 1


I don't care for this at all, but I suppose it can be worked with if they put some work into the balance. 



> Lowest Scoring thing: Highly Experimental "D20 Test" Rules where 1 is always a fail and 20 is always a success


 It was a terrible idea to break their previous good idea. 



> Other low scoring (60% range) things: New Dragonborn and Ardling


 I like Fizban's Dragonborn, and Ardling is a stupid idea.  Go with Aasimar as core. 



> Next UA will include "A new version of the Cleric" (Last UA drop was very large, they're going for smaller installments now, will be followed by the other members of the Priest group, the Druid and Paladin)


 Where we will find out if they took a perfectly good class and screwed it up.  



> Warrior group will also include new Weapon options for certain types of characters ("whole new ways to use weapons")


 Waiting to see what the heck this is. 



> New "Home Base" rules, recurring downime rules, called the "Bastion" system


 Artificial, and IMO pointless. Maybe they will surprise me. 



> Eldritch Blast has not been removed, but it doesn't exist on any of the new spell lists. More info when the Warlock arrives.


 The long held "make EB a warlock class feature" finally arrives. 



> Removal of the Thief's access to "Use an Object" with Cunning Action was intentional. It's a mechanic they refer to as a "Mother May I" mechanic, which depends heavily on DM approval or buy-in to function properly, and could be frustrating or unsatisfying, or slow down the game, and create an endless stream of questions regarding specific use cases. This is part of a larger effort to clarify rules. May return with some changes.


 What the complete F?  It was fine. 



> Some "juicy" stuff coming for Warrior group for dealing damage.


 OK, I'll see what they are up to.

----------


## JackPhoenix

And just like that, I'm done with D&Done. I no longer have any faith in the WotC's current team and their product, not that I had much to begin with.

----------


## Kane0

Not much terribly surprising here, thanks for the written copy.

----------


## Unoriginal

All rules are 'ask the DM', always. 

That's what makes it we are playing a TTRPG. 

Aside from that it sounds like they're not happy that some of their ideas didn't please people, but are nonetheless trying to tell those people "you don't have to worry about that".

----------


## Arkhios

One big problem I see with someone else's TL;DR's, is that many people seem prone to take their word for granted, not fully realizing that no matter how hard these other people might try to maintain a neutral perspective, sometimes those people still do reflect their own opinion or understanding of said things when writing with their own words that which they've heard or read elsewhere instead of just writing from the source exactly word for word.

My advice: Take all TL;DR's with a grain of salt.

----------


## Oramac

> And just like that, I'm done with D&Done. I no longer have any faith in the WotC's current team and their product, not that I had much to begin with.


Can you give a little more on why? Which part(s) were the straw that broke the camel's back? 




> My advice: Take all TL;DR's with a grain of salt.


Very true. Having watched the video myself, I saw a few things in the TL;DR that I would have written out differently.

----------


## EggKookoo

> One big problem I see with someone else's TL;DR's, is that many people seem prone to take their word for granted, not fully realizing that no matter how hard these other people might try to maintain a neutral perspective, sometimes those people still do reflect their own opinion or understanding of said things when writing with their own words that which they've heard or read elsewhere instead of just writing from the source exactly word for word.
> 
> My advice: Take all TL;DR's with a grain of salt.


TL;DR

Sorry, couldn't resist.

(Point taken, I'll keep it in mind for the future.)

----------


## Sparky McDibben

Anybody see if they mentioned the "monsters can't crit" rule? I didn't hear anything about it, and that worries me. The consensus seemed to be that WotC included that as a lightning rod and yet...no lightning?

I think it's hilarious Strongholds and Gollowers was so successful that WotC basically just ran with their idea. Sorry, MCDM.

----------


## Oramac

> Anybody see if they mentioned the "monsters can't crit" rule? I didn't hear anything about it, and that worries me. The consensus seemed to be that WotC included that as a lightning rod and yet...no lightning?


Hmm. They specifically mentioned the auto-success/fail on a 20/1 rule, and noted that it was hated (insofar as they can, at least). I don't recall them mentioning the monster crit stuff though. My guess would be they lumped that in with the auto-success/fail rule, but at this point, we really just don't know.

----------


## Psyren

> Anybody see if they mentioned the "monsters can't crit" rule? I didn't hear anything about it, and that worries me. The consensus seemed to be that WotC included that as a lightning rod and yet...no lightning?
> 
> I think it's hilarious Strongholds and Gollowers was so successful that WotC basically just ran with their idea. Sorry, MCDM.


The crit rules scored low, he included that in the overall d20 test discussion. He didn't specifically say that included the "monsters can't crit" version but he made it clear crits contributed to that rule being one of the low scorers.

----------


## Hael

> The crit rules scored low, he included that in the overall d20 test discussion. He didn't specifically say that included the "monsters can't crit" version but he made it clear crits contributed to that rule being one of the low scorers.


Did he say anything about inspiration on a nat20?  That was a remarkably bad idea, which I think scored poorly bc they switched it around for v2.  As far as I can see, the current 5.0 implementation is dramatically better design and it looks like they are switching things up for no discernable reason.

----------


## Jervis

So tomorrow is just gonna be cleric and two race changes? Kinda lame but im happy to see cleric soon. If anything they arent releasing enough at one time, you cant playtest with three-four classes that have heavy mechanical overlap in abilities.

----------


## Psyren

> Did he say anything about inspiration on a nat20?  That was a remarkably bad idea, which I think scored poorly bc they switched it around for v2.  As far as I can see, the current 5.0 implementation is dramatically better design and it looks like they are switching things up for no discernable reason.


Nothing about Inspiration.




> So tomorrow is just gonna be cleric and two race changes? Kinda lame but im happy to see cleric soon. If anything they arent releasing enough at one time, you cant playtest with three-four classes that have heavy mechanical overlap in abilities.


We're getting 4 things in the next UA (hopefully tomorrow):

 - Revised Ardling
 - Revised Dragonborn
 - Cleric
 - "A surprise guest"

----------


## Leon

> Warrior group will also include new Weapon options for certain types of characters ("whole new ways to use weapons")


Hopefully with a less bland selection of duplicate or near enough to be duplicate weapons this time around.

----------


## Telwar

> In this particular case, they'd have been better served by defining what it means to "use an object" (which would also clarify the Interact with an Object pseudo-action).


Agreed.  In an ideal world they would do exactly that, but that's probably more rules than they're comfortable writing.




> On a more serious note, the most insulting part of all of this is the insistence on just conveying this information in videos rather than _also_ giving us transcripts. For obviously prepared remarks like this, a transcript should be trivial. And way more accessible to a lot of folks as well as being searchable/linkable much better.


I'm guessing they just don't feel the need to write out the stuff that they're talking on, even though they've clearly already done so.

Or maybe they're taking as fact the assertion that 80% of the D&DNext Reddit community hasn't read the books as giving them clearance to not worry about confusing them.

Or maybe their annual bonuses are funded from Youtube ad revenue.




> And just like that, I'm done with D&Done. I no longer have any faith in the WotC's current team and their product, not that I had much to begin with.


I'm working on moving my group over to PF2 or LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE.  But I gave up on WotC not long after 5e's release, and haven't given them any money since Tasha's.

----------


## Psyren

I don't get where the belief they're reading off a transcript or teleprompter is coming from; the videos seem very freeform to me.

RE: Use An Object - I think the action to use an object should be in the object's entry itself, e.g. specifying that you need to Attack to throw an acid flask. And if it's unspecified then it depends on the DM - for example, using a Shovel to dig up an artifact should probably take more than one action, but hitting a goblin over the head with that shovel can be one action.

----------


## Zhorn

With the insistence that so much of their results were scoring highly, and what percentage values they regarded as scoring low: I do wonder what conversion formula they were using
Survey results: scale from very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, etc etc, down to very unsatisfied.
But are referred to as a flat percentage satisfaction value in the interview.

Example: the d20 test rules (inspiration/crits) were very regularly commented on in youtube fan channels as not being received fondly, and while they remarked on it as a low scoring result, was still in the 60%-70%(?) range.

Just a concern I have in their interpretation of results.
Does this mean we as survey takers should give more exaggerated responses so that our intended reaction will be weighted more accurately, if middle of the road responses are likely to be lumped in at the positive end?

----------


## Psyren

> Just a concern I have in their interpretation of results.
> Does this mean we as survey takers should give more exaggerated responses so that our intended reaction will be weighted more accurately, if middle of the road responses are likely to be lumped in at the positive end?


Even if this entire forum did that though, out of 40k respondents it probably wouldn't mean much. And that's putting aside the fact that we'd probably cancel each other out on anything contentious.

In short, I wouldn't worry about trying to "game the system."

----------


## Zhorn

> In short, I wouldn't worry about trying to "game the system."


The actual concern is more on WotC's side of things, in how they are weighting responses as to what types of responses they lump together is being positive to their designs.

It's a concern to keep in mind for any type of survey where answers given are converted into a different for for results, regardless of who is running the survey and for what purpose.

----------


## Psyren

> The actual concern is more on WotC's side of things, in how they are weighting responses as to what types of responses they lump together is being positive to their designs.
> 
> It's a concern to keep in mind for any type of survey where answers given are converted into a different for for results, regardless of who is running the survey and for what purpose.


I'll rephrase then - even if there is some negative aspect of the weighting whereby it is more optimal to get everyone to pick extreme values, to do anything about it you'd have to get the better part of tens of thousands of people to change their behavior. As that is highly improbable, I wouldn't worry.

----------


## animorte

> For those not wanting to go over to YT, I swiped the first TLDR comment from one Cameron Scarlett.
> 
> 1. _Highest Scoring thing: Feats from Backgrounds at Level 1_
> 2. _they're going for smaller installments now_
> 3. _("whole new ways to use weapons")_
> 4. _They don't want any one feat to feel mandatory in order to do a significant amount of damage._


Thanks for that. 

1. Thats because a fair amount of people were bringing back 3.5es level 1 feat as a house rule anyway.
2. This worries me a bit. The more they stretch out the content, there is less time overall for constructive feedback to receive a proper response.
3. Cant wait to observe their bravery in a new system.
4. Thank heaven for acknowledging that ideal, but well see how they attempt to accomplish it.




> I'm in rough philosophical agreement that having classes depend mostly on class features (rather than feats, etc) for power is a good thing. I'll reserve judgement until I see their implementation.


This is almost verbatim what I was going to comment. Well said.




> I was actually working on my own summary because the quoted one, while helpful, is still missing crucial context from Crawford.


Much appreciated.




> It was a terrible idea to break their previous good idea.


Neither of them was a good idea.




> when writing with their own words that which they've heard or read elsewhere instead of just writing from the source exactly word for word.


Paraphrasing. This is why I always attempt to make direct quotes and cite my sources. Even then, one can choose to quote only the things they personally deem valuable.




> it looks like they are switching things up for no discernable reason.


I disagree. I do think this _can_ apply, but it admittedly seems obvious in only a _few_ areas. There is no way for anybody to improve if they are afraid to try something different.




> Or maybe their annual bonuses are funded from Youtube ad revenue.


Shots. Fired.




> Does this mean we as survey takers should give more exaggerated responses so that our intended reaction will be weighted more accurately, if middle of the road responses are likely to be lumped in at the positive end?


I have learned that any format of questioning always prefers more assertive statements. Otherwise, if youre near-neutral on everything, why should anybody care what you think? (I say this because Ive lived a mostly neutral life and have seen the results.)

----------


## Psyren

> 2. This worries me a bit. The more they stretch out the content, there is less time overall for constructive feedback to receive a proper response.


Don't worry, it's flat out incorrect. Crawford says the _next_ UA will be a little bit smaller than the first two, but the ones after that are expected to go back to being just as meaty (16:05).

In short, Arkhios is right, don't rely on the TL;DR stuff; there is really no substitute for just watching the video oneself.




> 4. Thank heaven for acknowledging that ideal, but well see how they attempt to accomplish it.


They've acknowledged that the damage from those feats feels good, but as I surmised in a previous thread, the tradeoff of the -5 was too trivial to overcome. They just want the damage to be part of the (Warrior) classes instead of being a quasi-mandatory feat.

----------


## animorte

> Don't worry, it's flat out incorrect. Crawford says the _next_ UA will be a little bit smaller than the first two, but the ones after that are expected to go back to being just as meaty (16:05).


Love it. Bring it on.




> In short, Arkhios is right, don't rely on the TL;DR stuff; there is really no substitute for just watching the video oneself.


Absolutely. You can likely tell I havent had the time to watch it for myself yet.




> They just want the damage to be part of the (Warrior) classes instead of being a quasi-mandatory feat.


Im fine with this.

----------


## Dienekes

Interesting video. 

I love the hints about new interesting things happening with weapons and martial classes. Can't wait to see it. Hoping it's good.

I like giving ardlings a more defined purpose. Personally don't see much reason for their lore purpose given when he have Aasimar and mechanically I didn't see much reason for their beast heads when they didn't do anything. I don't think I'd feel like a special bear-headed man with three random cleric spells and a mad hops ability. Focusing them down seems like a good choice. 

I think I heard him confirm it is 4 subclasses for each class. Which is excellent. But I'm curious what that means for some of the classes with a lot of subclasses in the current PHB. No real way to get every school of magic on the wizard right out the bat. And four is a bit limited to get a good base covering to all the types of gods. Makes me wonder if we're going to get quite a shakeup. With those sort of classes getting a Warlock style not-quite-a-subclass system overlayed on top of the base class.

Doing things that way may actually work with the current idea to make all subclasses on the same level. Now, I understand there is some confusion if it's every subclass in the each class group have subclasses at the same levels or if it's all subclasses. I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Perfectly honest, I'm not actually a fan of that change. But, if we see a reshaping of classes that clearly should be making a decision at level 1 to be those not-quite-a-subclass systems that could be alright. Say, if you pick your Sorcererous lineage, your Wizard School Focus, your Cleric Deity, and (hopefully) your Paladin Oath at level 1. And then at the regular levels you get a more mechanical focused subclass it could work. Or at least I'd be willing to see how it could go. 

I guess we'll just have to wait for tomorrow and see how the Cleric is designed.

----------


## Kane0

> But I'm curious what that means for some of the classes with a lot of subclasses in the current PHB. No real way to get every school of magic on the wizard right out the bat.


Sure you can, just have each subclass cover two schools each. Like instead of the illusionist and enchanter you have the beguiler.

But i'd also be perfectly happy seeing a secondary subclass split like how warlocks work, or just a pool of class-specific features to pick from like invocations.

----------


## Arkhios

> *Paraphrasing*. This is why I always attempt to make direct quotes and cite my sources. Even then, one can choose to quote only the things they personally deem valuable.


Thank you, I had *the word* right on the tip of my tongue, but couldn't quite point my finger to it (after all, english is not native to me). Then again, it's one of those "big words" and maybe someone doesn't know the _meaning_ of _paraphrasing_. (as my signature quote says: Words actually mean things, people)

----------


## Mastikator

> With the insistence that so much of their results were scoring highly, and what percentage values they regarded as scoring low: I do wonder what conversion formula they were using
> Survey results: scale from very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, etc etc, down to very unsatisfied.
> But are referred to as a flat percentage satisfaction value in the interview.
> 
> Example: the d20 test rules (inspiration/crits) were very regularly commented on in youtube fan channels as not being received fondly, and while they remarked on it as a low scoring result, was still in the 60%-70%(?) range.
> 
> Just a concern I have in their interpretation of results.
> Does this mean we as survey takers should give more exaggerated responses so that our intended reaction will be weighted more accurately, if middle of the road responses are likely to be lumped in at the positive end?


Dissatisfaction drives engagement a lot more than satisfaction. The amount of dissatisfaction in the comments really only tells us how many people are engaging with the content, not how well received it is. That's not even taking into account professionally angry content creators on youtube and the perpetual motion machine that is the internet hate machine. I put more faith into the survey than youtube comment sections and this forum. I suggest it is most unwise to listen to youtube commenters and angry forumites.

----------


## animorte

> Dissatisfaction drives engagement a lot more than satisfaction.


This is no doubt the most accurate statement made thus far. Proof is seen everywhere. When people agree on something, they might rephrase it for clarity, shake hands, and move on. Meanwhile disagreements rapidly accelerate the page count.




> I suggest it is most unwise to listen to youtube commenters and angry forumites.


Im inclined to believe we are in the minority, especially considering I played D&D for over 8 years before even looking to the internet community. It took nearly two more years for me to contribute. Many people that are present dont necessarily actively participate in the exchanges. Everybody else I play with has little to no interest in the forums, though some might watch a YouTube video every now and then.

There was a thread somewhere discussing the relevance of neutrality in discussions. I believe the area in which the neutral community resides is an incalculable majority. Of course, I could be wrong.

----------


## OvisCaedo

Was there any comment about the jumping and movement rules?

----------


## yisopo

> That's not even taking into account professionally angry content creators on youtube and the perpetual motion machine that is the internet hate machine. I put more faith into the survey than youtube comment sections and this forum. I suggest it is most unwise to listen to youtube commenters and angry forumites.


100% agree.

----------


## Mastikator

> Im inclined to believe we are in the minority, especially considering I played D&D for over 8 years before even looking to the internet community. It took nearly two more years for me to contribute. Many people that are present dont necessarily actively participate in the exchanges. 
> 
> There was a thread somewhere discussing the relevance of neutrality in discussions. I believe the area in which the neutral community resides is an incalculable majority. Of course, I could be wrong.


Not only am I convinced of that, but I think each platform forms a different minority. If you look at reddit you will see different consensus than here (not that either have a strong consensus on much). The same goes for youtube and twitter and every platform you can think of. Not only because different mediums have different rules, for example here there are nono-topics that are yesyes-topics elsewhere, meanwhile elsewhere they may have voting systems on comments, youtube comments can't be downvoted and get raised if there's many replies (even if it's many disagreeing), on reddit you may get downvoted into oblivion for saying unpopular things or saying things in an unpopular way.

Saying that most people on this forum are unsatisfied with the UA is pretty meaningless. We're really only talking about maybe a hundred unique users, and worse- because 20% of the users make up 80% of the posts, it's even less representative than it appears. I mean, I may as well go to work and ask my coworkers what they think of the UA, my work where only one other person plays D&D (and I did, he was excited to play a ranger). But really that's 1 guy, not 40k survey takers.

----------


## Kane0

> Was there any comment about the jumping and movement rules?


Wrong UA, that one came next

----------


## Xihirli

> Sure you can, just have each subclass cover two schools each. Like instead of the illusionist and enchanter you have the beguiler.
> 
> But i'd also be perfectly happy seeing a secondary subclass split like how warlocks work, or just a pool of class-specific features to pick from like invocations.


Hmm. So what are some other pairings you could do?
Necromancer-Conjurer for a Summoner?
Transmuter-Abjurer for a Defender? 
And I suppose that leaves Diviner-Evoker as the "default" subclass each class is kinda-sorta supposed to have.

----------


## Gignere

> Hmm. So what are some other pairings you could do?
> Necromancer-Conjurer for a Summoner?
> Transmuter-Abjurer for a Defender? 
> And I suppose that leaves Diviner-Evoker as the "default" subclass each class is kinda-sorta supposed to have.


They might not focus on schools of magic at all and just have Bladesinger, scribes wizard, war wizard, and one more subclass.

----------


## Arkhios

> They might not focus on schools of magic at all and just have Bladesinger, scribes wizard, war wizard, and one more subclass.


Alas, it's too early for anyone to say, though. Unless they have insider information, which I doubt they would be allowed or willing to share.

----------


## Sigreid

I hope a Dnd1 form gets set up here soon instead of talking in in 5e.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I hope a Dnd1 form gets set up here soon instead of talking in in 5e.


Good thought, I just sent a PM to one of this forum's mods with that question.

----------


## Joe the Rat

Not surprised by the feedback they're getting.
Ardling makes a titch more sense if they're trying for "generic beast head" and not specifically "Yet Another Outer Planes Descendant."  Other than being inherently magical. "Wand up the butt" is the design default, though...




> With the insistence that so much of their results were scoring highly, and what percentage values they regarded as scoring low: I do wonder what conversion formula they were using
> Survey results: scale from very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, etc etc, down to very unsatisfied.
> But are referred to as a flat percentage satisfaction value in the interview.
> 
> Example: the d20 test rules (inspiration/crits) were very regularly commented on in youtube fan channels as not being received fondly, and while they remarked on it as a low scoring result, was still in the 60%-70%(?) range.
> 
> Just a concern I have in their interpretation of results.
> Does this mean we as survey takers should give more exaggerated responses so that our intended reaction will be weighted more accurately, if middle of the road responses are likely to be lumped in at the positive end?


Working with satisfaction metrics, a five point scale is really a three point scale: You read everything 1-3 as "needs work", 4 is "neutral", 5 is "actually positive". You have to be seriously in the weeds with what you are doing if your feedback isn't averaging a 4. 

What they are (hopefully) doing is referring to the 4s and 5s as their satisfaction percentages.  A lot of times you will report back like this to make things simpler for audiences, without having to explain what a 4.2 means in a broader sense.

Interpretation needs to be fed by comments - where you can pair words and themes with ratings.  Fingers crossed they're leveraging the parent company's marketing research team.

----------


## Segev

I hope _guidance_ as changed scored low.

Glad the level 1 feat thing scored high.

I am encouraged that they're looking at making "whole new ways to use weapons." While it could go in bad directions, the ATTEMPT is a good sign, and it could go very nice places if they do it right. What I hope to see is ways that specific weapons in the 5e weapon list get specific class and subclass features that make them into cooler toys than their otherwise-identical counterparts. And "cooler" is subjective to what you want to do with them. I don't konw specifically what I'd have a halberd vs. a glaive be able to do, but having distinct features that use them differently would be nice. 

And having some classes and subclasses get a broad swath of weapon-specific tools so they can expand their repertoire of moves by having more weapons, and others getting a deeper cut at specific weapons so they can be true masters of THAT weapon, is another good design approach, I think. I don't know that that's what they're doing, but I hope it's in the ballpark.

I agree that mechanics like the Wild Sorcerer's need to be made less "DM, remember that I have this, please"-dependent. I do dislike the idea that throwing Fast Hands out the window rather than codifying it better is the "solution."

----------


## Psyren

*IT'S OUT!*

And the "surprise guest" turned out to be... Goliaths! In core! Must be for the Critical Role fans.




> I hope a Dnd1 form gets set up here soon instead of talking in in 5e.





> Good thought, I just sent a PM to one of this forum's mods with that question.


Asked and answered.




> I think I heard him confirm it is 4 subclasses for each class. Which is excellent.


He just said 48 total (which is only slightly more than we have now), not how many each would get IIRC.

----------


## yisopo



----------


## Psyren

> I hope _guidance_ as changed scored low.


Guidance has been changed, the limit has been removed but now the range is only 10ft.




> I do dislike the idea that throwing Fast Hands out the window rather than codifying it better is the "solution."


To be fair, they're throwing it out but we don't know what they have planned for Use An Object yet either.

----------


## Segev

> Guidance has been changed, the limit has been removed but now the range is only 10ft.


That's my biggest complaint about it fixed. I honestly don't mind a short range, though I still prefer the minute duration so you CAN do the "may Lathander guide your steps, my friend" _guidance_ to the rogue before he heads off to scout.




> To be fair, they're throwing it out but we don't know what they have planned for Use An Object yet either.


True, but I still hope they go with "modify and codify" so thief gets to use whatever they do do with that in a cool way.

----------


## T.G. Oskar

> He just said 48 total (which is only slightly more than we have now), not how many each would get IIRC.


Check it again: I believe he said it right after saying that there'd be 48 subclasses on the new PHB. (Timestamp would be great.) It makes sense, though, as it seems some Domains will get shafted: Knowledge most likely, perhaps Nature (too samey to Druid). Considering how they're going for "each class can do something from the other", most likely we'll just see Life, Trickery, War and a castery domain somewhat like Arcana.

So...changes.
+ Divine Spark or Magic Spark or however it's called. Proficiency bonus amount worth of d8s to heal a single ally or damage a single creature by spending one of your Channel Divinity uses.
+ Holy Order? Basically, you can make it more of a Warpriest (Heavy Armor and Martial Weapon Proficiency), Lore-based (choose two lore-related Skills; you add your Wisdom to the roll) or Castery (get one more cantrip for free). You get one choice at 2nd level and another at 9th.
+ Dragonborn Breath Weapon is now an Attack Action, like in Fizban's. 5th level ability is flight as a BA for about 10 minutes equal to your Speed.
+ Goliaths are officially the new Half-Giants. Like, literally: their Stone's Endurance is now an option you can choose related to Stone Giants, with other Giant-related options. Also: an Enlarge Person effect, but without extra damage.
+ Guidance has no limits, as mentioned before. (Except the 10-ft. duration, but I kinda like it as a reaction rather than a buff. It frees your Concentration slot.)
+ Resistance now works like Guidance.

= Destroy Undead is replaced by Smite Undead. A feature that applies only on weak undead got replaced by extra damage to all Undead you affect.
= Turn Undead now *Dazes* undead. Dazed is much like Staggered on 3.5, in that it allows either moving or making an Action but not both, and negates both your BA and Reactions.
= Blessed Strikes works exactly like the feature in Tasha's, so consider that an official replacement from now on. (You could say it got nerfed since it's now fixed to Radiant Damage, but that was the way it worked with Tasha's. Oh, and it only applies to cantrips OR attacks, but that was the way it worked for Tasha's anyways. YMMV.)
= Life Domain is pretty much exactly the same. All it got shafted was the proficiencies (now part of the Holy Orders), the Divine Strike (which is part of the Blessed Strike feature) and its 1st level spells, since they're now a 3rd-level option.
= Banishment works mostly the same, except every target's sent to the same demiplane and then after the minute any Aberration, Celestial, Elemental, Fey or Fiend gets banished to a *random* plane.
= Prayer of Healing got buffed? Apparently it's now "benefits of Short Rest + 2d6 healing" on a 10-minute casting time.
= Which reminds me: Short Rests still exist, but judging by what Crawford said that "things in the 2014 PHB remain the same unless we choose to change them", it works exactly the same? (1 hour duration, you recover HP equal to your Hit Dice, recover any features that involve taking a Short Rest).

- Channel Divinity got nerfed. Now it's PB uses per long rest. (One of the Holy Order options lets you recover ONE use per Short Rest, though.)
- Ardlings still suck. They're getting to close to what Shifters are now, but they're still "celestial furries". (This is mostly bias from my part, though.)
- Aid got nerfed. Now it's 5 THP to 6 allies, that's it.
- *Spiritual Weapon got nerfed.* Now it's a Concentration spell.

Will need more time to comb through it, but this is mostly the gist of it. You're still welcome to comb through it and give your own thoughts about it, but there's fewer stinkers than with the Expert classes. They're also definitely trying to stick in to their design goals (though Divine Intervention is still very much a "Mother May I" thing).

----------


## Psyren

> That's my biggest complaint about it fixed. I honestly don't mind a short range, though I still prefer the minute duration so you CAN do the "may Lathander guide your steps, my friend" _guidance_ to the rogue before he heads off to scout.


As there is now a main thread for the third playtest I'll move my reply over there.

----------


## EggKookoo

> = Which reminds me: Short Rests still exist, but judging by what Crawford said that "things in the 2014 PHB remain the same unless we choose to change them", it works exactly the same? (1 hour duration, you recover HP equal to your Hit Dice, recover any features that involve taking a Short Rest).


Note that long rests now restore all HD as well as HP.

----------


## Psyren

> Check it again: I believe he said it right after saying that there'd be 48 subclasses on the new PHB. (Timestamp would be great.)


I stand corrected - 18:22.

And given what we're seeing with the current Cleric UA, whereby they're decoupling the choice of "martial cleric vs blaster cleric vs loremonkey cleric" from domain to an extent, I could see Wizard getting similarly tweaked.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I think it's hilarious Strongholds and Gollowers was so successful that WotC basically just ran with their idea. Sorry, MCDM.


 What's a Gollower?   :Small Confused: 



> As far as I can see, the current 5.0 implementation is dramatically better design and it looks like they are switching things up for no discernable reason.


 In a lot of ways, yes.   



> Just a concern I have in their interpretation of results.


 Yeah "Trust us!" 



> Neither of them was a good idea.


The original 5e way was the good idea: saves and ability checks have not auto fail on a 1, nor crit on 20, but attacks miss on 1 and crit on 20. I have come to find that usable. But removing crits entirely: is that where you are going? 


> some Domains will get shafted: Knowledge most likely, perhaps Nature (too samey to Druid). Considering how they're going for "each class can do something from the other", most likely we'll just see Life, Trickery, War and a castery domain somewhat like Arcana.


 Lose War, Keep Tempest. Please. 
So...changes.



> = Destroy Undead is replaced by Smite Undead. A feature that applies only on weak undead got replaced by extra damage to all Undead you affect.


I guess it's a wash.  But I liked being able to clear a room. 



> = Banishment works mostly the same, except every target's sent to the same demiplane and then after the minute any Aberration, Celestial, Elemental, Fey or Fiend gets banished to a *random* plane.


No, they get a save each round. This is a hard nerf. 
*Spoiler: current spell*
Show

You attempt to send one creature that you can see within range to another plane of existence. The 
target must succeed on a Charisma saving throw or be banished.  If the target is native to the plane of existence youre on, you banish the target to a harmless demiplane. While there, the target is incapacitated. The target remains there until the spell ends, at which point the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied. If the target is native to a different plane of existence than the one youre on, the target is banished with a faint popping noise, returning to its home plane. If the spell ends before 1 minute has passed, the target reappears in the space it left or in the nearest unoccupied space if that space is occupied. Otherwise, the target doesnt return. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 4th.





> - Ardlings still suck. They're getting to close to what Shifters are now, but they're still "celestial furries". 
> - *Spiritual Weapon got nerfed.* Now it's a Concentration spell.


 Yes, grrrrrrr.



> ... they're decoupling the choice of "martial cleric vs blaster cleric vs loremonkey cleric" from domain to an extent, I could see Wizard getting similarly tweaked.


 When I first read your post, I read that as "martial cleric vs blaster cleric vs lovemonkey cleric" and did a double take. 
What's a lovemonkey cleric?   :Small Eek:  
Then I saw I'd been using the Evelyn Wood method too strongly ...

----------


## animorte

> I stand corrected - 18:22.


Im completely fine with this. 




> The original 5e way was the good idea: saves and ability checks have not auto fail on a 1, nor crit on 20, but attacks miss on 1 and crit on 20. I have come to find that usable. But removing crits entirely: is that where you are going?


No, I was referring to either OneD&D rendition. I agree with you.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> No, I was referring to either OneD&D rendition. I agree with you.


 Are we allowed to do that?  :Small Eek:   :Small Big Grin:

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Are we allowed to do that?


No! Agreement is forbidden!  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Segev

> Are we allowed to do that?


No. Burn the heretic!

----------


## animorte

> Are we allowed to do that?





> No! Agreement is forbidden!





> No. Burn the heretic!


It just got too real up in here! My apologies for breaking tradition. Ill see myself out.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Luccan

> What's a Gollower?


A typo. They meant Followers. Strongholds and Followers is one of two 5e supplements from MCDM aimed at basically bringing back the ability to have men-at-arms and keeps and the like for 5e. And while I would be surprised if the rules for OneD&D on those are any good (not because they can't be, but because that would be a big focus shift for WotC D&D at the moment), it does give the impression of trying to drive off some competition since it was patching a hole in the 5e rules they didn't seem to care about before

----------


## EggKookoo

> A typo. They meant Followers. Strongholds and Followers is one of two 5e supplements from MCDM aimed at basically bringing back the ability to have men-at-arms and keeps and the like for 5e. And while I would be surprised if the rules for OneD&D on those are any good (not because they can't be, but because that would be a big focus shift for WotC D&D at the moment), it does give the impression of trying to drive off some competition since it was patching a hole in the 5e rules they didn't seem to care about before


Combined with a lack (or limited form) of OGL for 1D&D, I'm not entirely thrilled with the implications.

Buy your supplements now, I guess?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> They meant Followers. Strongholds and Followers is one of two 5e supplements from MCDM


I have it. I should have put in a smilie face to indicate humor. My bad.    :Small Sigh:

----------


## Psyren

> Combined with a lack (or limited form) of OGL for 1D&D


You mean the unsubstantiated fearmongering rumor?




> Lose War, Keep Tempest. Please.


I don't want Moon to be the only divine full-gish option  :Small Frown: 




> When I first read your post, I read that as "martial cleric vs blaster cleric vs lovemonkey cleric" and did a double take. 
> What's a lovemonkey cleric?


Divine Bard of course  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Telesphoros

> *IT'S OUT!*
> 
> He just said 48 total (which is only slightly more than we have now), not how many each would get IIRC.



FYI, Check the video at 18:20. Right after he says 48 total subclasses he does say there will be 4 subclasses for each class.


With Clerics listing Holy Order options for Martial, Scholar, and Thaumaturge I'm thinking that War, Knowledge, and Arcana Domains will not be showing up. I'd say Nature also has a strong shot of not making the cut. Thoughts?

----------


## Kane0

> Hmm. So what are some other pairings you could do?
> Necromancer-Conjurer for a Summoner?
> Transmuter-Abjurer for a Defender? 
> And I suppose that leaves Diviner-Evoker as the "default" subclass each class is kinda-sorta supposed to have.


Beguiler = Enchantment/Illusion
Seer/Summoner = Conjuration/Divination
Shaper = Necromancy/Transmutation
Warmage = Abjuration/Evocation

----------


## Psyren

> FYI, Check the video at 18:20. Right after he says 48 total subclasses he does say there will be 4 subclasses for each class.


yeah we covered that




> With Clerics listing Holy Order options for Martial, Scholar, and Thaumaturge I'm thinking that War, Knowledge, and Arcana Domains will not be showing up. I'd say Nature also has a strong shot of not making the cut. Thoughts?


I'm hoping War DOES show up and has Extra Attack at 6th. There are way too many gods that would be missing without it.

I'm hoping they cut Nature from core and make those clerics be Land Druids instead.

----------


## Kane0

Hmm. My bet would be Life, War, Trickery and either Light or Tempest. That's the healy priest, the fighty priest, the sneaky priest and the blasty priest.
Probably altered slightly, perhaps substituting for non-PHB domains. Nature draws too close to the Druid and Knowledge seems somewhat covered by the Scholar Order
Edit: You could say the same for War and the Protector order but if you don't have a fighty domain you have nothing to actually take real advantage of those armor and weapon proficiencies

----------


## EggKookoo

> You mean the unsubstantiated fearmongering rumor?


That one, yes. It's doing its job.

What info do we have about the 1D&D OGL?

----------


## Jervis

> You mean the unsubstantiated fearmongering rumor?





> That one, yes. It's doing its job.
> 
> What info do we have about the 1D&D OGL?


I wouldnt call it fearmongering. Looking at DMsguild I wouldnt be surprised if they changed the rules going forward to try and make everyone use that, and their content model with dndbeyond and avoiding selling PDFs in a way that makes preserving or getting your hands on old content as hard as possible doesnt exactly fill me with optimism. Its well within the bounds of reasonable speculation to assume that the OGL wont be as generous as it was in the past. 

Obligatory mention that my hatred of WotC and Hasbro as a company isnt related to my opinion of the game itself or the designers as they almost certainly have zero say on those matters.

----------


## Segev

> A typo. They meant Followers. Strongholds and Followers is one of two 5e supplements from MCDM aimed at basically bringing back the ability to have men-at-arms and keeps and the like for 5e. And while I would be surprised if the rules for OneD&D on those are any good (not because they can't be, but because that would be a big focus shift for WotC D&D at the moment), it does give the impression of trying to drive off some competition since it was patching a hole in the 5e rules they didn't seem to care about before


I am hopeful they ARE good. One thing that would help D&D a lot would be such rules, because it can help close the perceived gaps between martials and casters, and it can also provide incentive for more of the exploration pillar to be used. "Bastion" rules that make actually finding a "bastion" to rest at important for, say, one-night long rests would make the shift between gritty realisim and normal rules organic to the game, and be helpful for the attrition style of play that goes between exploration and wilderness travel and the dungeon crawling experience.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I am hopeful they ARE good. One thing that would help D&D a lot would be such rules, because it can help close the perceived gaps between martials and casters, and it can also provide incentive for more of the exploration pillar to be used. "Bastion" rules that make actually finding a "bastion" to rest at important for, say, one-night long rests would make the shift between gritty realisim and normal rules organic to the game, and be helpful for the attrition style of play that goes between exploration and wilderness travel and the dungeon crawling experience.


They only appreciably affect the perceived gaps IF martials get stuff from them that casters don't. And lots of it. To the tune of "casters can't interact with this at all". And we all know that won't happen. Because it would be commercial suicide.

----------


## Telesphoros

> yeah we covered that
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping War DOES show up and has Extra Attack at 6th. There are way too many gods that would be missing without it.
> 
> I'm hoping they cut Nature from core and make those clerics be Land Druids instead.



Oops, missed that post! That's what I get for trying to keep up with two different threads and watch all those videos. Blech.


Just like Druids cover Nature, I wonder if they're line of thinking might be that Paladins cover the old domain of War? Or that all Clerics with their Holy Orders have a Martial/War presence for their various gods/pantheons? 

I also have to wonder if they'll include subclasses from Xanathar's or Tasha's for the PHB core of OneD&D.

----------


## animorte

Ive thrown down plenty of time-stamps and notes. A few of them have a bit of additional words for personal context.

Here, have this:
*Spoiler: My TL;DR is better than yours*
Show


One D&D Survey Results and the Future of One D&D. Crawford states very clearly that theyre discussing results of only the *first* UA. (0:40)

Their grading scale*:
To them, 90% translates as, Yes, this! (5:23)80% seems to be their threshold for scoring high. (3:55)70% or higher seems to be the goal. (4:15) But admits that means theres still work to be done. (4:28) - Prove it.60-70% is salvageable, but needs reconsideration. (5:38)50-60% is likely not worth doing much with. Below 50% pretty much gone. (6:00)3 things made it as low as 60-70% range: D20 test, Ardling, and Dragonborn. All of these received A-B testing, obviously. (8:55)
* _This still doesnt tell us how that correlates with their 5 answer options, one being rather neutral_

Lots of other notes:
They like to do A-B testing, presenting two different versions of the same concept. (8:22)Ardling is *not* replacing Aasimar. (12:58)UA-3 is the smaller of expected UAs. (16:06) - Thank goodness.Warrior groups: whole new ways to use weapons. (17:00) - Spread Battlemaster our maybe?Bastion: mentions your group of NPCs and downtime rules as part of home base. (17:40) - Probably just the familiar town.Total of 48 subclasses, 4 for *each* of the 12 classes. (18:20) - ****ing love it! Spread the love.Several actions arent appearing in the UA glossary because they are using it as defined in PHB 2014. They typically put things in UA only if its being defined differently. (22:07)Requiring too much DM buy-in feels bad. (26:22) - To me, this means theyre attempting to refrain from making anything too precise.Warriors relying on class features instead of must-have feats. (28:08+)Fix light weapon property. Bonus actions are better used elsewhere. (31:10)*Theres a good chance the Bard will have a list that simply compiles all the spells the Bard can choose from.* (33:20+) Some classes just have access to the entire list (cleric/wizard). - So, we can still expect to see class specific spell lists for those that have restrictions. Awesome!User interface as friction-free as possible. (34:50) - This is a _goal_, but I *really* hope its included in the UA feedback itself at some point, because its been kind of an organization train wreck to navigate thus far.Direct conduit to the design team is the UA survey.** (36:50+)
** _If you dont care enough about the game to want to utilize one of the several outlets in order to contribute (for free), I dont see the point in complaining. I personally, love the game and I intend to put forth my effort in its progression, however little effect that may or may not have (just in case). Expectations have evolved and thats ok, just as the game should. And its really not that outrageous to ask._

I _could_ list my ideas of what I think the 4 subclasses for each class will be. I also dont think there is much point. I just hope theyre each versatile enough in play and implementation.

*Anyway, as we all know, take any TL;DR with a grain of salt. Thanks for reading.*

----------


## Psyren

> What info do we have about the 1D&D OGL?


They promised that there will be one, and while it will likely continue to evolve, third party publishers would still be supported. That's all we know.

One change I anticipate, given their UA and recent press release, is that mentions of "race" in the new OGL will be replaced with "species." 

(Siderant: assuming they don't want to use my favorite term, "Ancestry," because PF beat them to it - personally I'd rather that they went with "Lineage" than "Species", especially since we already have "Custom Lineage.)




> Oops, missed that post! That's what I get for trying to keep up with two different threads and watch all those videos. Blech.
> 
> 
> Just like Druids cover Nature, I wonder if they're line of thinking might be that Paladins cover the old domain of War? Or that all Clerics with their Holy Orders have a Martial/War presence for their various gods/pantheons? 
> 
> I also have to wonder if they'll include subclasses from Xanathar's or Tasha's for the PHB core of OneD&D.


Druids covering the thematic niche of a nature cleric is not at all the same as paladins covering that of a war cleric though. This is akin to saying "why do you need a melee Druid when Ranger exists?"




> Ive thrown down plenty of time-stamps and notes. A few of them have a bit of additional words for personal context.
> 
> Here, have this:
> *Spoiler: My TL;DR is better than yours*
> Show
> 
> 
> One D&D Survey Results and the Future of One D&D. Crawford states very clearly that theyre discussing results of only the *first* UA. (0:40)
> 
> ...


Yours is indeed vastly superior.

I'll caveat however that on the "bard spell list" point - they still appear committed to having a "formula" for determining what spells the Bard and other subset-list-casters get. So Bard getting a class list in the PHB might be a return to class spell lists more broadly for some classes, or it may simply be them "showing the results of the formula" in core for new players using that book specifically.

----------


## EggKookoo

> They promised that there will be one, and while it will likely continue to evolve, third party publishers would still be supported. That's all we know.


Which is really saying we know nothing.

My real worry is that they'll clamp down on homebrew on DnDBeyond, as it's a simple way to bypass needing to buy official content for your own campaigns.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Which is really saying we know nothing.
> 
> My real worry is that they'll clamp down on homebrew on DnDBeyond, as it's a simple way to bypass needing to buy official content for your own campaigns.


And will integrate D&D Beyond into their new VTT so that you'll have to do some annoying dance to get homebrew (other than maps and tokens) into that.

I don't use homebrew to avoid content limits. I do use homebrew extensively to add my own content.

Personally, if they go all in on OneD&D in D&D Beyond and make it harder to access 5e materials, I'll just cut ties entirely. I've already got my VTT set up and the necessary stuff cached. And other methods for offline play. Sucks for players who prefer D&D Beyond, but no sense paying a subscription for something I'm not using.

----------


## Psyren

> Which is really saying we know nothing.


Not having the details yet is different than spreading fearful rumors with no basis though.




> My real worry is that they'll clamp down on homebrew on DnDBeyond, as it's a simple way to bypass needing to buy official content for your own campaigns.


I mean, people *shouldn't* be using it for that. Homebrew means making your own content, not stealing theirs.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I don't use homebrew to avoid content limits. I do use homebrew extensively to add my own content.


The problem is, it's a judgment call. I've made homebrew on DnDBeyond that's gotten flagged for being too similar to published content that I've never laid eyes on or even heard of. It's never been a problem since I don't publish my homebrew and just use it for my own campaigns, but the system is aware of it and that it could match some algorithmic parameters resulting in me being unable to use it.




> Not having the details yet is different than spreading fearful rumors with no basis though.


I'm not spreading rumors. I'm communicating that there is a thing _that I don't want to happen_. You say there's no evidence it will happen. That's fine. I'm just trying to help make sure.

You say "fearful rumors" like someone's going to get hurt by this. All that's happening is people are becoming aware of the possibility. How else am I supposed to let WotC know I don't want the OGL to be touched, and to the degree how important it is? Fill out a survey?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the OGL exists for WotC's benefit, not ours.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm not spreading rumors.


I didn't say you were - the rumor began with a reactionary youtuber who doesn't even post here IIRC and a couple of alarmist hobby publications ran with it.




> I'm communicating that there is a thing _that I don't want to happen_. You say there's no evidence it will happen. That's fine. I'm just trying to help make sure.
> 
> You say "fearful rumors" like someone's going to get hurt by this. All that's happening is people are becoming aware of the possibility. How else am I supposed to let WotC know I don't want the OGL to be touched, and to the degree how important it is? Fill out a survey?


And that's fine, and it even got a response from WotC. We're highly unlikely to get another until we're a lot closer to 1DnD, that's all I'm saying.




> Let's not lose sight of the fact that the OGL exists for WotC's benefit, not ours.


Indeed it does - sounds like a great reason to expect them to keep it to me  :Small Cool:

----------


## EggKookoo

> Indeed it does - sounds like a great reason to expect them to keep it to me


A large part -- perhaps the only real significant part -- of that benefit is to help WotC maintain market dominance. They needed the OGL when they were fighting for space on bookshelves. I'm not sure they're in that position any more. I wasn't playing D&D when 4e came out, but it sounds like they felt like they weren't in that position then (only to be shown by Paizo that they were).

----------


## Segev

> They only appreciably affect the perceived gaps IF martials get stuff from them that casters don't. And lots of it. To the tune of "casters can't interact with this at all". And we all know that won't happen. Because it would be commercial suicide.


I disagree with this both in that "casters can't have this thing if it's going to close the gaps" and "it would be commercial suicide if casters were denied it" are, to me, incorrect statements.

First off, you can simply give warriors much better, cheaper, or otherwise versatile access to the stronghold-building and follower rules, or make them serve warriors much better than they do casters. Casters can still benefit from their own strongholds or portions thereof, and can still have apprentices or the like to help them with castery things, but if warriors have, for example, no limit on what kind of followers they can have while casters are limited to "more of what I can already do," that'd be a big step in that direction. Another possibility would be that strongholds increase power projection in ways that casters already have solutions for. This doesn't so much make it so that "warriors now can do more than casters in this area" as it makes it so that the gap is closed by virtue of warriors having options to spend resources to "catch up" to the caster in this area, while the caster doesn't bother because he has it already. Give warriors MORE resources to work with in acquiring these features, and you can make up for the "well, casters now have fewer things they have to buy, so they're still better because their strongholds do more than play catch-up" problem.

Secondly, if all of the good subclasses or other features for interacting with, building, or recruiting strongholds and followers were in the warrior group, or the warrior and priest or expert group, I doubt it would be "commercial suicide." It's not like people refuse to buy books that have spells in them because there aren't enough new options for martials. Or vice-versa. The best selling books tend to be the sort that have something for every "group" (XGE, TCE, for example). If "the stronghold and follower" stuff is "for warriors only," then that just becomes a section of whatever book is printed, along with there being a section for new spells.




> A large part -- perhaps the only real significant part -- of that benefit is to help WotC maintain market dominance. They needed the OGL when they were fighting for space on bookshelves. I'm not sure they're in that position any more. I wasn't playing D&D when 4e came out, but it sounds like they felt like they weren't in that position then (only to be shown by Paizo that they were).


If they try it, they'll find quickly that closing off third party production for their product invites those third parties to start making competing products. This will still kill off a lot of third party companies who are too small to get a following, but any that gain traction become competition for D&D rather than support for D&D, which makes it a bad idea.

Right now, if you buy, for example, Kobold Press or Mage Hand Press products, you're buying them for use with D&D products, and you're still likely buying D&D products for the same games you're buying the third party stuff for. If, however, Kobold Press had to make Kobolds and Kapers as their own game, if their followers start buying up the new core books for this indie gaming company's indie project, they will be spending time playing Kobolds and Kapers, and will not be having as much use for the new D&D book that comes out, because they're busy playing a game that isn't allowed to be compatible with it.

Sure, this is a small flaking of the actual fanbase of D&D, but making a decision to deliberately force what is currently a support structure for your castle into being an undermining sapper, however small, is just bad business.

----------


## animorte

> Sure, this is a small flaking of the actual fanbase of D&D, but making a decision to deliberately force what is currently a support structure for your castle into being an undermining sapper, however small, is just bad business.


Unless of course they just start to partner with buy out the third party companies (DnDBeyond). Also looking at you Disney.

Seems to work well in some cases.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Sure, this is a small flaking of the actual fanbase of D&D, but making a decision to deliberately force what is currently a support structure for your castle into being an undermining sapper, however small, is just bad business.


With the understanding that big companies do dumb things all the time (Paramount+ comes to mind), I hope you're right.

----------


## Segev

> With the understanding that big companies do dumb things all the time (Paramount+ comes to mind), I hope you're right.


Yeah, the fact that it's bad business doesn't mean they won't do it. Just that it would be a mistake if they did.

None of the third party companies producing content for 5e under the OGL are competitors to WotC, is my point. And the more dominant WotC is, the more that's the case. FORCING them into being competitors is a mistake. 

One Apple made in the early Microsoft v. Apple years, so....

----------


## Psyren

> Unless of course they just start to partner with buy out the third party companies (DnDBeyond). Also looking at you Disney.
> 
> Seems to work well in some cases.


DnDBeyond had a relatively unique and difficult to replicate capability they completely lacked in-house, not to mention brand synergy. That acquisition made perfect sense.

By contrast - acquiring, say, Kobold Press would not only be silly, it would change nothing material for them (or us!) even if they did. The KP people would probably enjoy the payday, followed by promptly starting up another third party shop if the buyout didn't include hiring them.




> A large part -- perhaps the only real significant part -- of that benefit is to help WotC maintain market dominance. They needed the OGL when they were fighting for space on bookshelves. I'm not sure they're in that position any more. I wasn't playing D&D when 4e came out, but it sounds like they felt like they weren't in that position then (only to be shown by Paizo that they were).


They tried to kill it in 4e and got a black eye for it, sure. What they've landed on now is a framework that enables both open and closed content to be used by third parties, and that's the best of both worlds.

----------


## Segev

> What they've landed on now is a framework that enables both open and closed content to be used by third parties, and that's the best of both worlds.


If that's what whatever they're doing now and/or later does, that's great. :)

----------


## animorte

> DnDBeyond had a relatively unique and difficult to replicate capability they completely lacked in-house, not to mention brand synergy. That acquisition made perfect sense.
> 
> By contrast - acquiring, say, Kobold Press would not only be silly, it would change nothing material for them (or us!) even if they did. The KP people would probably enjoy the payday, followed by promptly starting up another third party shop if the buyout didn't include hiring them.


Well said, thats fair.

In my knowledge, most companies that do this (with any form of reasonable mind) typically keep those newly acquired associates on the payroll.

----------


## Cheesegear

> In my knowledge, most companies that do this (with any form of reasonable mind) typically keep those newly acquired associates on the payroll.


In _my_ experience, a company that gets bought out, is often a way of deleting the competition;

Everyone gets a golden pair of handcuffs. They get a nice payday, and then they get slapped with an NDA, and then they lose their jobs. And _then_ they get slapped with a non-compete contract from anywhere from 3 months to _5 years_, depending on their position.

----------


## animorte

> In _my_ experience, a company that gets bought out, is often a way of deleting the competition;
> 
> Everyone gets a golden pair of handcuffs. They get a nice payday, and then they get slapped with an NDA, and then they lose their jobs. And _then_ they get slapped with a non-compete contract from anywhere from 3 months to _5 years_, depending on their position.


Like I said, with reasonable mind. By that, I mean not an @hole.

Youre probably right in the majority of cases, but various things like gaming companies that outsource something eventually team with the smaller guy that has provided a value to them and its less monopoly.

----------


## EggKookoo

> In _my_ experience, a company that gets bought out, is often a way of deleting the competition;
> 
> Everyone gets a golden pair of handcuffs. They get a nice payday, and then they get slapped with an NDA, and then they lose their jobs. And _then_ they get slapped with a non-compete contract from anywhere from 3 months to _5 years_, depending on their position.


How does a company make you sign a contract _after_ they've fired you?

----------


## Jervis

> How does a company make you sign a contract _after_ they've fired you?


Likely severance, depending on the industry Ive heard that some companies might make a good severance dependent on a non compete agreement. Those are usually signed when you begin employment though

----------


## Cheesegear

> Likely severance, depending on the industry Ive heard that some companies might make a good severance dependent on a non compete agreement. Those are usually signed when you begin employment though


Contracts signed when you begin employment, can usually be nullified if the company changes hands.
'You didn't make that agreement with _us_, you made it with _them_ - and _they_ aren't here anymore.'

In Australia, at least, it might go something like this:

Big company buys out small company. Usually not for the staff; But for the IP, production facilities, warehousing, etc. All your assets, are now our assets - including the staff...But shhh...We don't actually want those...

Existing staff - especially those on high paycheques - are given the option of severance; Generally, this might be a large sum, but conditional on that large sum, comes a non-compete contract that ideally should last you for as long as that non-compete stands (e.g; If you have 12 months of non-compete, your severance should include 12 months salary - but it usually doesn't). Now, for a lot of people, being forced to not be able to work in an industry that they've worked for years in, and getting told that for at least [x] time, their experience is worthless...Is not a good deal.

If you don't take that deal, you will usually get found a reason to be let go (or you quit on your own), and good luck, kid. No severance - but no non-compete. You have to try and make it work. Some people do.

But the ideal situation for most is the following:

You get three months severance. You get three months non-compete. You have a _really_ bad time trying to get a new job. You go back to your old company (under new management). They already know who you are, they already know your experience. You are valuable. You're hired, obviously. But now they can hire you back at significantly reduced wage/salary.

But hey, this is way off topic.  :Small Amused:

----------


## Sigreid

> Likely severance, depending on the industry Ive heard that some companies might make a good severance dependent on a non compete agreement. Those are usually signed when you begin employment though


Yep, you can have this better severance as long as you sign this.

----------

