In short, Wizards of the Coast’s first playtest ruleset for One D&D is a miss. Races and feats are imbalanced at best and boring at worst, while rules changes confuse and undercut several of the new features that would otherwise show promise. The tone of the new rules are very player-oriented and situate the DM as the bad guy at the table when disputes over some of the new implementations inevitably arise.
WotC have also failed to quell concerns about lingering background language that reinforces harmful racist and classist archetypes - while concurrently mired in a Spelljammer scandal that prompted them to announce, “We failed you, our players and our fans, and we are truly sorry.”
If the entire foundation for the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons is this flawed, there may be more failure weighing down bookstore shelves soon. The trepidation around One D&D is valid. Rather than doubling down in support of their most successful iteration yet by promising more and better content for 5th Edition, WotC has vowed to maintain the status quo of their current production schedule alongside ongoing playtests for their ruleset revision.
Promising the end of the era would be a mixed message in its own right, but Wizards also announced they are moving into the virtual tabletop (VTT) space. VTT’s are a popular way to play D&D online; WotC sharpening their knives to carve out a piece of what had been an entirely 3rd-party pie adds a sour corporate flavor to the whole affair.
On the bright side, peeling back the veil by offering public playtests and taking community feedback gives them a better shot at delivering a 6e we can all be happy with. If you haven’t read through the material yet or voiced your opinion, the Character Origins survey is still open, but only until the 15th.
As long as Wizards of the Coast clean up One D&D so that reading through the Player's Handbook doesn't start to feel like doing taxes, with every paragraph sending you flipping hundreds of pages through the book to find the related rule you need, I'll be satisfied. Layout and organization are my top requests for 6e! |  |
Now for the nitty-gritty, I'll share my thoughts in detail on each topic included in the playtest. Without the context of a complete set of rules, races, feats, and spells, it’s hard to give a final grade to any part of it, however. We must then try to judge apples to apples; how do the playtest races compare to the other playtest races? It is also worth considering, especially for veterans well-versed in the rules, why some changes were made. What part of the game’s design did they feel needed to be changed, and did they do so effectively?
Races
The only definitive positives are dwarven Stonecunning, and tieflings being able to be small or medium. A mischievous, mephit-inspired tiefling isn’t something I had considered before, but it sounds fun. Some of the races depend on aspects of the game we haven't seen developed property, like crafting and the new feats, while others are so defense-oriented that they appear too passive.
Humans
Building 5e’s variant human bonus feat into the base human isn't going to be attractive if the 1st-level feats it's limited to are mediocre. Boring, but could be a hard to resist pick if the feats are good. If not, better to be a dwarf.
Aardlings
A beast-touched type race could be neat, but in what way are these anything other than furry Aasimar? Why not more lineages for the existing race that fills this niche instead? A centaur/faun/bariaur lineage here would be popular, and ditch the bizarre celestial redundancy with the Aasimar.
That conflict aside, why are their lineages associated with alignments, when their fiendish analogues, the tieflings, specifically aren't? Flight on a PHB race isn't going to work for a lot of DMs. At least humans aren't the only ones lacking darkvision now.
Dragonborn
How many times are Dragonborn going to get revised? Didn't Fizban's just come out? Use that template, and update the colors that weren't included in that book here. This appears to be an outright nerf.
Dwarves
Forge Wise hinges on tools and economy being relevant. Stonecunning is neat. Why no lineages?
Elves
Hot take, Drow are the only elves that should have darkvision. Look, it’s an oversaturated ability and I’m trying to find ways to dial it back, okay? The drow spell list is thematic but non-functional compared to the others. High elves being able to change their cantrip is neat. Why only them?
Gnomes
Could we ditch darkvision on the surface dwellers? Cunning seems very strong, but it's all they really get and it's defense only. Why did gnomes get dwarven lineages? Very passive, very boring overall.
Halflings
WAY TOO STRONG. Why are they ALL brave? Luck is insane, and ALL halflings are lucky? If yes, might it be better to give them the feat than this? Free stealth proficiency on top of all that? Yikes.
But hey, no darkvision!
Orcs
Tying temp HP gain to movement is mechanically flawed. Why can't an Orc do one or the other? Powerful Build would benefit from some grappling bonus - and make magical or dex-based Orcs more interesting.
Tieflings
Tieflings are fiend folk but that doesn't mean their alignment has to be bad, yet Aardlings are tied to the alignments of their lineages? Small tieflings are interesting - it would be worth talking more about why they can be so physically different, like those born from mephits or something.
These spells are VERY strong, but they don't get much else so it might balance out.
It’s worth pointing out that none of these races have clearly defined spellcasting modifiers for calculating saves, they just say to pick your spellcasting ability. |
Backgrounds
You get a feat, and you get a feat! These are neat, although the languages associated with the sample backgrounds are sort of odd. This might be a place to inject setting-specific flavor. How does a guide in Faerun differ from a guide in Eberron, etc.? I think that would help establish strong characters that fit into their specific worlds, and get us away from things like all farmers being able to speak halfling for some reason.
Does the starting 50 GP mean classes no longer provide equipment, or is it extra?
Feats
Some fun, interesting abilities in here, but a number of these feats feel like they will be required for efficient builds, and I don’t like that - especially not if they’re competing with ability score improvements on level up. Healer would be a must-have for clerics, lucky a must-have for rogues, tavern brawler a must-have for monks, and so on.
Modifying feats to have more prerequisites, level dependencies, and giving everyone one to start, is exciting and could be really good for character building. Without a full list though, it’s really hard to give meaningful feedback. If feats are going to receive as much of an expansion as it appears, WotC would be wise to do another survey focused solely on them.
Are half feats gone?
Alert
Initiative swapping is a fun feature in other TTRPGs, and tying it to this feat is probably an OK way to introduce it to D&D.
Crafter
Are tools going to do something, and is an economy going to exist?
Healer
Battle medic requires a healer’s kit without providing the means of acquiring one, takes an action AND one of the target’s hit die. How does that work if the target is incapacitated? Do they get their Con+ hit die bonus to the healing? Feels like a lot of investment for a 1dX+prof roll.
The healing rerolls almost make it a requirement for many clerics (and possibly other classes with healing features).
Lucky
AKA, the Rogue feat. Imposing disadvantage is fun. Why only on creature attack rolls? Are we, or are we not, differentiating between “D20 Tests”?
Magic Initiate
I think I love this update - but “Consult the PHB for the rules on spellcasting” is a crime against book layout. Every other paragraph in the 5e PHB sends players flipping 200 pages through the book to find some stupid rule, and it’s the one thing above all others I hope to see revised in the next edition. If writing in the spellcasting rules with this feat creates too much lengthy, redundant text, perhaps consider an appendix at the end of each chapter listing every rule referenced within?
Musician
Three instrument proficiencies, with no means to acquire them. Pretty boring, unless the new rules for tools are exciting. Why not singing, rapping or poetry?
Granting inspiration each rest is OK, but isn’t that going to be redundant for a lot of characters, like humans? It’s also harmed by the limitation of 1 stored Inspiration at a time.
Asking the table to differentiate from Bardic Inspiration and Inspiration Inspiration is a minor headache as well.
Savage Attacker
I love options like this for players that are convinced they are incapable of rolling well. Would be interested to see the math on whether or not this feat is a trap, or essential. Should this apply to thrown and ranged attacks, as written? Will 2d weapons roll 4 dice and choose the best 2? If a greatsword crits, do we roll 8 dice and choose the best 4?
Skilled
Boring, but a handy feat for players/parties that want the flavor, or to compensate for a lack of skills. This could be a good spot to add something economy-based, like a little extra starting gold or an upgrade to downtime income.
Tavern Brawler
Tons of fun. How is this going to interplay with tabaxi and other natural weapons features? Will there be a grappling feat(s) as well? Feels like an essential monk pick. Should Furniture as Weapons specify furniture, or be a little broader?
Tough
Solid, simple pick that’s good for certain players and characters. You could spice it up a little with an enhancement to combat rules like giving advantage against shoving or similar.
Rules
I understand the desire for consistency and to simplify the rules so that rolling a d20 is the same for every check, but the "D20 Test" positions the DM as the bad guy, who now has to make more judgment calls and disallow skill checks entirely rather than letting the rules dictate failures on absurd attempts. That, and eliminating monster crits, make this feel like a very player-gazing update. I hope to see DM’s, especially new ones, shown love in future playtests.
Free inspiration on a nat 20 plus everything else a nat 20 gives is silly. It would be a nice consolation prize for a nat 1, though. A hard limit of 1 Inspiration, with things like Humans and the Musician feat, isn't great.
Crits only apply to the weapon/unarmed dice, not bonus dice from feats, abilities, enchantments, spells, etc., right? Even so, a level 1 character with Savage Attacker and a Greatsword who crits will be rolling 8 dice, with the top 4 applying, right? 8 dice at level 1 is wild. Clarifications needed across the board; I can imagine how busy Jeremy Crawford will be on Twitter trying to clean up if the rules release in this state.
All in all, I'd take the entire rules section back to the drawing board. It feels vague in places and very inconsistent, with some rules seemingly forgetting features from earlier in the document.
Closing
WotC have a lot to improve on here, in my opinion, but it is playtest material for a source book two years away. They have time, and no doubt a ton of fan feedback, to get it right.
What are your thoughts on some of the new and revised character options? Make sure to let Wizards know by the 15th, and keep an eye out for this month's new playtest!
Comments