5e -> 1D&D, as a PLAYER / DM do you care?

[da newt]

I'm curious what all y'all think FROM A PLAYER / DM PERSPECITIVE are you interested in the next iteration of D&D? Are you happy with 5e and find there is no driving need to reinvent the game? What do you think is in it for you as a PLAYER / DM?

I brought this up in another thread, but I thought it might warrant it's own conversation. I ask because I haven't run into any players who are excited about the new version. In general it seems to me that most folks are more of the 'I hope they don't make it worse' mindset than the 'oh boy, I hope they fix X Y & Z and come up with new stuff to mess with.'

What's in it for you the end user?






(I really don't want to hear what's in it for the parent company. I'm burned out on that.)

[paladinn]

They seem to be going in the same direction as 4e or PF2. I'm withholding judgment for now; but I'm not holding out much hope for anything good.

[False God]

I am not particularly happy with 5E, and I'm not particularly interested in OD&D.

The overall direction of the game seem seems to be a general proliferation of magic, a reduction in granularity, and a focus on short, low-level gameplay catering towards new player PUG groups and online play.

[JackPhoenix]

5e is good enough game. Not great, but good enough. The quality of official content has gone down a lot lately.

D&Done, from what they've shown so far, continue the trend of being worse in pretty much every respect, mechanics, fluff and the stuff we can't talk about here. As a GM, it's likely I'll be switching, but to a non-D&D system. WotC has lost any good will (any money) I was willing to show them.

[Mastikator]

As both I am interested. Based on the playtest UA I think D&D1/6e will be better than 5e. However it's not the quality of the product that is making me hesitant about not buying it, I really hope they get their house/ethics in order.

TBH it's only in the last 3 years that D&D5e became the default for my group(s), so we may just move on to something else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e is basically perfectly in my "zone of acceptability". There are things I don't like, but they're not critical--fixing them wouldn't influence how I feel about the system much and I don't feel the burning need to change them.

As a result, 1D&D doesn't really have a "killer app" in my mind. It's a solution in search of a problem. To cap it off, the majority of the things they're changing are either things I didn't think were an issue, really liked...or they're changing it to double-down on the things I thought were wrong with it (cough everything interesting is a spell, shoving spells into everyone's kit cough).

As a result, I have zero interest in 1D&D and lacked such even before the whole business-model/ethics/etc. hullabaloo started.

[Ignimortis]

Only in the general sense of "welp, here's another X years of disappointing D&D-likes". 1D&D is really more like 5.5, and my opinion of 5e is already rather low as both a player and a GM. The only genuine compliment I have for 5e is that it's not like PF2e.

[Sigreid]

As a player and DM I've not seen anything put out by them in a few years that makes me even the slightest bit interested in the current team's ideas for a new edition.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'm content with 5e for now, and probably for years to come. There are still whole classes I've barely explored, and certain plenty of subclasses. 5e has enough mechanics to make gameplay fun and I see little need to change up anytime soon.

That said, I'd probably be happy to steal a few things that seem like improvements (like the new exhaustion rules), so long as I can get them for free online. But I'm unwilling to plonk down any additional money for a new WotC product.

So I'll probably just stick with 5e, so long as I can continue playing on Roll20 or another VTT for free. If not, I'll start reluctantly looking into PF2 or another system.

[MrStabby]

Hmm. Mixed thoughts. I like some of the bits like making background and race more important. I like some of the options opening up, but a lot of the mechanics I don't like, a lot of it feels homogenised, though I would have explicitly asked for the opposite.

To a certain extent I would give the creators a pass, if I didn't know better. I would figure that they know what they are doing (it's their job), and they would have more data and feedback than I would. I still think there is some truth in this... though only a tiny bit.

On the other hand, I have got massively better at predicting how new content will play out - at least in my groups. I can easily see which abilities are going to render others obsolete, I can see how content will impact on resting mechanics or the action economy. If I were not so accurate then I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Are the tables I play at so idiosyncratic that I can predict them but Wizards cannot? Or should I accept that my assessment of the impact of Twilight Cleric or Silvery Barbs are less accurate than the assessment of the people that decided to publish them?

I have slowly moved into the camp of 'I can't see how that adds to the fun' is no longer me missing something crucial, to the camp of it probably being a mistake.

D& Done is still in early stages and a lot can change. I was excited by it. I still am a bit. 5th for all its flaws is a good game and 'something for bit like 5e' is always going to get my attention.

I see releasing these games as a bit of an optimisation algorithm and each new product helps explore the space and inform future developments. Hit or miss, D& Done is likely to inform other products by other publishers in the near future.

As a DM... harder to get the enthusiasm. Can I actually be bothered to learn anew system to the point I can quickly balance encounters? To the point that I know the relative strengths and weaknesses of each class and how to make them shine? Or will I hope to get a few games under my belt to get the hang of things first?

The problem is a lot of other players will probably see things the same and no one will want to make the first move.

[JadedDM]

Even ignoring the OGL kerfuffle entirely, I haven't really seen anything about 'One D&D' that excited me. Nothing about it like, upsets me or anything. But it's not enough to warrant me to drop everything, spend over a hundred dollars on new books, and start all over again from scratch. At least, not so far.

I feel like 5E is just fine for now. Any issues I have with it can be house ruled away.

[kazaryu]

I'm curious what all y'all think FROM A PLAYER / DM PERSPECITIVE are you interested in the next iteration of D&D? Are you happy with 5e and find there is no driving need to reinvent the game? What do you think is in it for you as a PLAYER / DM?

I brought this up in another thread, but I thought it might warrant it's own conversation. I ask because I haven't run into any players who are excited about the new version. In general it seems to me that most folks are more of the 'I hope they don't make it worse' mindset than the 'oh boy, I hope they fix X Y & Z and come up with new stuff to mess with.'

What's in it for you the end user?

as far as whats in it for the end user, theoretically it should provide a fresh-ish game, without having to dramatically change a lot of the core rules. they also seem to be designing it in such a way as to make it easier to program into a VTT.

as for me, i don't really need the game redesigned, i still have plenty of characters/adventures in mind. and i don't particularly like many of the changes i've seen (bardic inspiration/guidance becoming reactions, full vancian casting for what appears to be all full caster classes, teh absolute neutering of the rangers narrative identity). so odds are i won't move on to onednd unless a group that i really want to play with prefers it.

[Kane0]

Not really excited about my books needing extra work to play with the new rendition, but i am excited about cherrypicking all this playtest stuff do tool into my existing library.

[firelistener]

I love 5e. I know a lot of people that love D&D will disagree, but I really appreciate how 5e struck a balance of maintaining most of the "sacred cow" rules from older editions, like druids not wearing metal armor, but also split out backgrounds from classes. I also think the implementation of subclasses is excellent, and it's my favorite thing about 5e as opposed to older editions. Subclasses allow for the complexity of older prestige classes and kits in a manner that involves much less time planning on the player's part. Like a theme mechanically and want it to define combat for you? Pick your subclass and go for it. Want your character to be a pirate, but also want to play a cleric? Choose the Pirate background and play a Cleric class, easy.

In older editions, players had to carefully plan out stat, class level, and feat requirements to play certain archetypes, and this was most often done just to achieve some background character fluff rather than really going after a particular spell or feature they wanted. I think the freedom provided to players by selectively splitting the mechanical numbers away from some of the role playing elements has better enabled players to make characters they really enjoy even in the early levels, and that's my favorite thing about it. Some people love spending all that time planning. In my experience, they still can in 5e, but it doesn't yield the explosive and lopsided rewards it did in editions like 3.5 where the right investment of feats and such could give you an overwhelmingly powerful character. For people that enjoy that planning, I can see how 5e doesn't allow them to "win" anymore, and that can be frustrating. But in my experience, many players really don't care about the crunch beyond, "I attack," or "I cast a spell," and really just see combat as an extension of role playing. I like combat a ton, so I can respect characters designed well for it, but I also like to see players really dig deep into exploring who a character is more than the numbers that compose them.

Now, for One D&D? So far, I see things trending in that same direction. Even the controversial stuff I'm skeptical of, like the no-critical-hits-for-monsters rule, seems to have some merit. For example, I actually have been frustrated as a DM when I roll a crit for monsters that insta-kills a player because it deals so much damage to them. It means that I have to throw more encounters with weaker enemies at the players to give the same XP if they want to do combat XP rather than milestone, or else they end up oscillating between taking no damage at all (so fights seem easy) or getting hit with a strong attack and losing instantly (so fights seem too hard). I think a lot of the rule changes, given some playtesting, could be really good.

So I'm excited to see where things go. I love 5e and think I always will, and I cautiously hope the future edition(s) will be even better.

[Zevox]

I am not excited from either perspective, no. I very much like 5E, and see little reason to want a new edition unless it has some solid argument for being even better than 5E, and from what I've seen of One D&D/5.5E so far, it doesn't seem to. They're mostly tweaking things around the edges, and mostly in ways I find neutral to questionable, not positive. I expect that my likely course of action will be to poach a few mechanics here and there that I like and integrate them into our 5E games as house-rules when I DM, and ask our regular DM if we can do the same when he DMs. That's not a long list, currently - the tremorsense ability on Dwarves, making the additional off-hand attack for dual wielding just part of the attack action instead of a bonus action, maybe a couple of feats, maybe getting a feat at 1st level. I'm unlikely to be interested in adopting the new edition fully unless the rest of my group wants to, and I don't get the impression that they will at this point.

Maybe things will pick up as they show future classes - I am particularly interested in how they rework the Four Elements Monk, as that the biggest disappointment of the PHB to me - but that's where I stand at this time.

[Atranen]

5e is good enough game. Not great, but good enough. The quality of official content has gone down a lot lately.

As a result, 1D&D doesn't really have a "killer app" in my mind. It's a solution in search of a problem. To cap it off, the majority of the things they're changing are either things I didn't think were an issue, really liked...or they're changing it to double-down on the things I thought were wrong with it (cough everything interesting is a spell, shoving spells into everyone's kit cough).

As a player and DM I've not seen anything put out by them in a few years that makes me even the slightest bit interested in the current team's ideas for a new edition.

I agree with all of the above; OneD&D strikes me as rearranging the deck chairs rather than driven by a key design insight. Of course there's awkward mechanics (TWF) and things that could be improved (4 elements monk) from the original that are worth fixing. But I don't think the problems are sufficient to warrant a new edition rather than a patch like update. A new PHB incorporating the Tasha's changes would be welcome (well, uh, for the changes that are good ). In my AL games, most of these don't see play, I think because of how they're separated.

I also disagree with much of what I've seen of the new design direction, which seems more generic "anything goes" and has real power creep. The changes to how spellcasters prepare spells might be enough to kill OneD&D by itself. I may end up DMing for AL (because of the public aspect) but I doubt I'd enjoy playing those kinds of characters, so I'm less likely to be a player in OneD&D.

[Brookshw]

Indifferent, not a ton of playtest material is available yet so hard to say something with any conviction. What I currently have works fine, and I have no shortage of other games or past edition content I can convert without too much difficulty.

[da newt]

"It's a solution in search of a problem." I think this pretty much sums up my opinion. Sure there are a couple niggly things I'd like to fix in 5e as written (mostly to close weird RAW loop holes and make stuff fit my version of logical), but overall I'm comfortable.

I worry that 1DnD won't be an improvement, just a different flavor with some mild improvement and some mild regressions.

[Leon]

Not a fan of 5e, I play it because people I like doing things with invited me to.

While the next iteration has had some good points in the UA over all its a continuation of the dumbing down of the game. They are removing a lot of choice and having choice and options are a good thing (too many options is a opposite problem but 5e was nowhere near it) I've played some simple games that have more depth than 5e.

[Greywander]

I've been critical of the direction 5e has been heading and been doomsaying regarding the 2024 release, which we now know as One D&D. I haven't seen any reason to change my opinion, and in fact it's only been reinforced. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I expect One D&D to kill D&D for a while. Maybe not right away, but I don't think it will be as successful as they're hoping it will be. Perhaps the worst case scenario is that it ends up really successful, and now we'll be expected to pay monthly subscriptions and micro-transactions as a normal part of the game, with WotC having the power to just delete material that we've already paid for.

I'll most likely just move to a new system or create my own (both of which I've been wanting to do for a while), but if I stick with 5e I'll probably just backport anything I like from One D&D. Not all of the new 5e content has been bad, it's just been more bad than good. I actually had a big 5e overhaul in the works, but with all the OGL stuff going on I'll probably drop it entirely.

Now, I'm also expecting that a 6e will follow fairly quickly after One D&D, and it will go back to what 5e used to be and take it in the opposite direction that One D&D did. But perhaps that's too hopeful.

[Unoriginal]

I love 5e, and am sad that it is dying next year.

I don't know how D&Done will be like when it's finished, but it clearly won't be compatible with 5e despite claims of the contrary. At minimum, not with what I enjoy about 5e.

[llama-hedge]

I started off excited, but now I'm just sick of it. There are a couple of nice tweaks and additions in there (twf update, dazed condition), but the overwhelming majority of the changes are for the worse.

The new movement rules are a mess. They've botched cleric. Using spell schools for class lists is already leading to arbitrary kludges. As a player they haven't given me any new toys worth playing with, and as a DM they haven't given me anything at all.

I'm still going to read through the playtest documents to cherry-pick ideas, but that's me being a moth to the flame of a dumpster fire rather than someone who expects to find what they're looking for. They just aren't printing anything I can use right now.

[Zuras]

I’m very dubious about it. I’ve got a lot of 5e material I haven’t even used yet, and I’m really happy with 5e. If the modules/adventures are compatible, I may try them, but the main driver would be if my play group wants to move to 5.5/6e.

All the other (non-game) factors included, I’ll probably stop buying new product but stick with 5e unless my FLGS community goes hard for Pathfinder 2 after the recent late unpleasantness.

[animorte]

I look forward to seeing what all the other classes look like so we have more stuff to disagree about. So far, I like some of the decisions and mostly my group doesn't really care what we're playing. Most TTRPGs have somewhat adopted the standard of just being referred to as D&D anyway.

That being said, if we ever try anything new, it's generally my decision. As it stands, we still have plenty of 3.5 and 5e foundation enough that we can continue running homebrew as usual.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, I wanted a new edition, and this is 5e's next iteration, so, yeah, I'm interested, but as much as I'd be for a splatbook.

[kingcheesepants]

I think I would be a lot more excited about the new version if I really believed it was going to be 5.5 i.e. clarifying things that aren't clear, making language consistent and reorganizing the materials so that everything is together in a logical way, and making a few small tweaks to make things more balanced and work together better.
However from what I've seen so far the "backwards compatibility" of the new system is not really a priority and rather than making consistent language and making clarifications they seem more concerned with making a totally new thing.
I like 5e and I'll keep playing it, there are definitely problems with the system and a rules rewrite could have addressed those problems but what they're doing now isn't really doing what I hoped for.

[Psyren]

There are definitely things in the playtest I'm vehemently against (like Jump being an Action...) but I like more of what I'm seeing than I dislike. I'm hoping all the other stuff going on blows over soon so we can go back to iterating around the rules themselves.

[Kyovastra]

I haven't been fond of the direction of 5e the past few years, and One D&D looks like it's that direction taken further. I like 5e a lot and how it's the closest modern edition to 1e and 2e. I'd rather it was even more like them in some ways (especially, monsters lack a lot of the bite I'd like them to have and the HP bloat can be pretty bad), but instead it's going the opposite way, and One D&D looks like it's going closer toward 4e or Pathfinder. Really don't like any of the changes I've read, at best I'm neutral toward some of them. So I think I'll be sticking to DMing 5e and won't be interested in running or playing One D&D at all.

[strangebloke]

5e has lots of issues! Lots!

Nothing I've seen in 1dnd will correct them. Some of the stuff is good, some is bad, but overall its just a sidegrade at best.

Worth hundreds of dollars of books, retraining myself and all my players? No way.

There are definitely things in the playtest I'm vehemently against (like Jump being an Action...) but I like more of what I'm seeing than I dislike. I'm hoping all the other stuff going on blows over soon so we can go back to iterating around the rules themselves.

I am reasonably confident I remember you saying you barely play 5e and don't like it.

[Psyren]

I am reasonably confident I remember you saying you barely play 5e and don't like it.

Whaaaa...? That would be news to me

5e is literally my favorite edition of D&D to date.