If you're reading this you're probably aware that WotC and all the other corporate kraken that IS D&D these days is coming out with something new. Not 6e. Not 5.5. ONE. There's some play testing out there. We know a little about what's coming. Some of it's good. Some of it isn't.
Here's my take. D&D is now poker. There's a world of difference between five-card draw and Spit in the ocean. Play of Texas Hold Em is different than Big O high/low split. But it's all poker. And then layer in House Rules and it becomes unplayable. Except it doesn't. You learn the basics. You ask the game. You touch on house rules and you play. Every table is different but but every table has the same elements.
So I'm thinking when ONE (I forget: is this Coke or Pepsi?) hits tables will adopt some and reject some and we'll move on. This is my initial impression of what we know.
1. Critical hits. No crits for monsters. No crits for magic. Change of the damage calculation. Pretty much what we've BEEN playing so not really a change for us. Just kinda incorporates our house rule into canon. There's a bit more there but that's the meat of it.
2. Rolling a 20. 20 always succeeds. 1 always fails. Not a fan. By this rule a 90-year-old commoner has 5% chance to throw an aircraft carrier to the moon. Additionally the ONE calls for a character gaining inspiration if they roll a 20. No. Just no. IF we incorporate it it will be for rolling a 1. "You failed miserable but realized you could succeed by ..."
3. Ability score bonuses. Since first edition AD&D, each race has gained ability score modifiers that match the fantasy archetypes of robust dwarves, agile elves, and so on. This started back when everyone rolled characters at random and when good play meant making the most of whatever the dice gave you. I HATE this equity crap. I'll probably skip this modification completely and stick with old school/home brew character generation so the stereotypes will endure.
4. Feats. I've been trending away from feat for some time. MUCH better to get a 5-10% bonus in a skill. But players don't see it that way. They wanna be able to do cool stuff. And eventually they will. But at the start you get six ability scores, a race and a class. GO! But now we take AWAY the distinguishing features of race and instead add options via background" and feats. Don't like it. I'll probably continue to improve and implement Alexis' sage knowledge system. The one GOOD thing it appears the ONE does is to break feats down by level. Kinda like Alexis has been doing for years.
5. Grapple. Doesn't happen often enough to matter.
6. Spells. Three types. Arcane, Divine, and Primal. COULD really clean up quite a few things. I like the IDEA. We'll see how the implementation goes.
So there you have it. I'm thinking my table will stick with what we like from 5e, incorporate the "good" from ONE and continue to implement our house rules as needed.
I was curious, perhaps masochistic, and signed up for the open play test materials. So far all I've seen is partial character generation rules.; the part provisionally modified from 5e. It strikes me overall as very little different from 5e mechanically. They've increased the significance of background by having it affect ability scores now as well as "tool proficiencies" and tweaked races, for example, moving "inspiration" from being a DM reward to an automatic reward for completing a "long rest" for humans and adding a celestial counterpart to the infernal tiefling race. The races list looks even more like a renaissance fair in the cantina at Mos Eisley than before.
ReplyDeleteI missed any update to combat or skill checks in the rules I've read, but I haven't the patience for watching videos about this shit, so I may have missed out there. I'm generally against asymmetry in rules however, and if criticals are in fact permitted for PCs and not NPCs, well, I'm critical of that.
I've never been a fan of the 1 always fails and 20 always succeeds rule outside of a to-hit roll, and even there I'm on the fence. To nit-pick on your point #2 however, I wouldn't read that as a 90-year-old commoner having a 5% chance to throw an aircraft carrier to the moon, because not everything a player says gets a roll. Such an attempt is patently going to fail so, unless we're playing some parody of a game, no roll is required.
First, thx SO much for stopping by!
ReplyDeleteI concur about the mechanical similarity regarding backgrounds, but I'm not a fan of 5e either. I feel that the class/race distinctions are being erased out of wokeness - "let's all be able to be the same." QUITE a change from the "Elf/Dwarf/Human(fighter, magic user, thief) original set up from my younger days. They have become distinctions without differences.
Community seems to agree with the goose/gander take on crits. Rationale seems to be "we don' wanna kill first lvl characters." Won't be surprised if this doesn't make the final cut.
And I agree with your take on the 1-20 rule, but if we as DM's are going to rule that an attempt to do something will auto-fail (or succeed) then the 1-20 rule in "TheONE" becomes irrelevant and unnecessary.
As an aside, the introduction of classes, races and monsters over the last 30+ years is anathema to me and ALWAYS reminds me of this:
https://xkcd.com/904/