One D&D Survey Results and The Future of One D&D

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are we allowed to do that?

No! Agreement is forbidden!

[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.

[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.

[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

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

[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.

[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)

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.

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

[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.