I have yet to read the PDF in detail and haven't watched the video. I have read this thread and appreciate the thoughtful posts and responses.
That said, I really, reallyhate the changes to ability checks and saves (auto fails and success). HATE IT. Assuming I use the new rule set, I will be house ruling to remain as it is in the rules today.
They clearly state in the video, and calling auto-success/fail out for emphasis, that this is an experiment for the playtest to see how well it works. It is definitely not set in stone. Give your feedback when the survey goes live and let them have it.
A critical hit drastically changing the outcome of a battle, especially at low levels? I mean, yeah.
That is the point critical hits, to cause moments of both terror and triumph in equal measure. Why not get rid of critical hits completely if you don't like that they have an impact on the game?
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
If people get it wrong on the first read, they need to pay more attention - this attitude of "if I don't understand it the first time then it's badly written" is why there are constant debates about the official rules here, on Quora and on Reddit. If everyone misunderstood, then fine, you'd have a point. If it wasn't clearly labelled as "Sample Backgrounds", as the section header, then you'd have a point. But people clearly read "Samples" and it's clearly labelled, so misunderstandings are user error, not presentation error.
on the note of "omg crits are so dangerous at T1!" this is why you fudge. Also it's T1! Like, bruh. What did you expect??? If you don't want them to die then just say "death won't be permanent until level 3" or whatever. (If you didn't want the randomness then honestly why are you rolling tbh)
Some people don't like to fudge... Some people think it makes more sense that some/most/all commoners, goblins, bandits, kobolds, etc. just aren't skilled enough to land a crit... The fact is that Crits can be dangerous at Tier 1, and it can ruin everyone's fun if a PC straight up dies because a Goblin got a lucky shot... Granted, all tables are different, so you do it your way and we'll do it ours, but when I see someone say, "Why can't I crit as a DM? What about my fun?", I read it as, "I'm a sadistic DM that delights in potentially killing my PCs, who are supposed to be the heroes of the story".
on the note of "omg crits are so dangerous at T1!" this is why you fudge. Also it's T1! Like, bruh. What did you expect??? If you don't want them to die then just say "death won't be permanent until level 3" or whatever. (If you didn't want the randomness then honestly why are you rolling tbh)
This seems really silly to me. You're admitting the rules are bad if your actual advice to get around their obvious shortcomings is to "just cheat!". What if I don't want to cheat, but don't want to kill my players with the weakest monsters available?
Yeah, seems strange to advocate in-game "cheating" rather than just prepping monsters that can't do the thing that would tempt you to cheat in the first place...
A critical hit drastically changing the outcome of a battle, especially at low levels? I mean, yeah.
That is the point critical hits, to cause moments of both terror and triumph in equal measure. Why not get rid of critical hits completely if you don't like that they have an impact on the game?
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
If people get it wrong on the first read, they need to pay more attention - this attitude of "if I don't understand it the first time then it's badly written" is why there are constant debates about the official rules here, on Quora and on Reddit. If everyone misunderstood, then fine, you'd have a point. If it wasn't clearly labelled as "Sample Backgrounds", as the section header, then you'd have a point. But people clearly read "Samples" and it's clearly labelled, so misunderstandings are user error, not presentation error.
And to show that none of us are infallible - since the PDF was released, I was thinking a characters starting equipment was just what they could afford with the 50gp from their background - meaning no one could reasonably start with Scale Mail, because that's all their Gold spent. Then I re-read the "Character Origin Overview" table and seen:
Equipment: A Background provides a portion of a character's starting equipment, with the rest coming from Class.
It's not the fault of the presentation that I missed this the first time, it's my own fault for not reading it correctly.
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
No. Some people are just bad at reading. Especially people on the internet.
Some. However, if there is a large enough group of people misunderstanding what you're saying...well, you're the common factor. While the reader as the responsibility to attempt to parse what someone says, the speaker also has the responsibility to make themselves clear. If a non negligible number of people are misunderstanding what a writer writes, then the onus is on the writer make it clearer. There is a reason why I'm writing this in English rather than Italian - despite the reader having all the tools necessary to translate it. If players, the target audience, are not understanding something, then there's a problem with how it's written.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
No. Some people are just bad at reading. Especially people on the internet.
Some. However, if there is a large enough group of people misunderstanding what you're saying...well, you're the common factor. While the reader as the responsibility to attempt to parse what someone says, the speaker also has the responsibility to make themselves clear. If a non negligible number of people are misunderstanding what a writer writes, then the onus is on the writer make it clearer. There is a reason why I'm writing this in English rather than Italian - despite the reader having all the tools necessary to translate it. If players, the target audience, are not understanding something, then there's a problem with how it's written.
How could they possibly make it clearer though? There's a big Subtitle/Header at the start of the section that says "Sample Backgrounds", and the first paragraph in that section reiterates they are all samples... How could that be any clearer? Bigger letters? Red font? A few exclamation marks?
It also states "that you can choose from" and earlier references a list of premade backgrounds that you can choose from, implying that these are the standard backgrounds from which you can work from. Yes, you can swap them out, but the impression given is that these are the standard ones, which is what is being critiqued. I can modify anything, but that doesn't mean I can't critique the standard models being presented. I can make my own races, but I can still critique how they've made the standard races like Orcs or whatever. You can currently change languages provided by a race...but that doesn't mean we can't critique what the races come with.
You seem to have interpreted "sample" to necessarily mean that these are just random made up ones and won't be the standard "premade" ones intended be the basic choices that from which you choose or alter. I think their names, which match ones we already have, implies that these are the standard ones. The word "sample" means a sample of what we'll get in the PHB.
If they meant that these are just practice runs to show what you can do? I wouldn't use the word sample. I'd use example. For instance "Here are some examples of what you could create using the background creation feature...". Much less ambiguity, no confusion as to what is being sampled, no implication that these are the official ones, just "these are a few we did so you can see what the finished product might look like".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
I feel like this response illustrates a pretty big existing divide amongst folks who play D&D - especially between "old school" (people with experience with older editions, particularly 1E and 2E) and those relatively new to the game.
Because I think it's more than a bit...odd...to view character death as having so much impact as to halt an entire campaign. Character deaths should, IMNSHO, always be a possibility. Not always an equal possibility, mind you (it should be far riskier taking on a dragon than three orcs) but still a possibility. Choosing the adventuring life means choosing risk: it means daring death.
As a DM, my campaign could easily continue even in the face of a TPK, because I'm running a world that doesn't revolve around any one creature, PC, or NPC. Would a TPK alter/affect events in the campaign? Possibly (or likely, the higher level they are) - but it wouldn't stop it. Obviously, a TPK would mean starting again with new characters...but there's no rule that says the new group has to start at level 1.
I find this aversion to PC death one of the worst aspects of 5E, especially since there are multiple "safeguards" built into the mechanics so that it's very, very difficult for a PC to be killed (as in dead DEAD, not trying-to-stabilize-dead) outright with just one strike or damage roll.
Removing critical hits from monsters and NPCs further pushes the DM into the role of ultimately being an XP machine for the players, rather than an active representation for a world full of creatures, things, and beings that are actual challenges to the PCs.
For the record, I love it when my players crit - it's fun for the whole table. I wouldn't dream of taking that away from them. Taking away critical hits from monsters/NPCs seems like further sanding down the edges of the game.
It also states "that you can choose from" and earlier references a list of premade backgrounds that you can choose from, implying that these are the standard backgrounds from which you can work from. Yes, you can swap them out, but the impression given is that these are the standard ones, which is what is being critiqued. I can modify anything, but that doesn't mean I can't critique the standard models being presented. I can make my own races, but I can still critique how they've made the standard races like Orcs or whatever. You can currently change languages provided by a race...but that doesn't mean we can't critique what the races come with.
You seem to have interpreted "sample" to necessarily mean that these are just random made up ones and won't be the standard "premade" ones intended be the basic choices that from which you choose or alter. I think their names, which match ones we already have, implies that these are the standard ones. The word "sample" means a sample of what we'll get in the PHB.
If they meant that these are just practice runs to show what you can do? I wouldn't use the word sample. I'd use example. For instance "Here are some examples of what you could create using the background creation feature...". Much less ambiguity, no confusion as to what is being sampled, no implication that these are the official ones, just "these are a few we did so you can see what the finished product might look like".
It also says:
"When you choose a Background, you have three options:
Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section."
Again, if people just read what is presented, and use a bit of common sense, they'd know that not all Guards have to speak Dwarvish, not all Farmers need to be Tough, and not all Nobles need to be proficient in a Gaming Set! How many more times do people need them to say "customise what you want", "these are samples", or "you can build your character however you want"? If they didn't provide samples, people would be complaining, but then they do provide them and people are like, "not all guards should speak Dwarvish", instead of reading the document!
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
I find this aversion to PC death one of the worst aspects of 5E, especially since there are multiple "safeguards" built into the mechanics so that it's very, very difficult for a PC to be killed (as in dead DEAD, not trying-to-stabilize-dead) outright with just one strike or damage roll.
It's not an "aversion to PC death", it's "why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"... PC death can have a meaningful impact on the story, it can serve a purpose. But two sessions in and a Goblin happens to Crit an already damaged Wizard with an arrow, and against all odds also rolls max damage? Yeah, that's not serving a purpose, that's just terrible luck. Yes, it's highly unlikely, and yes, it won't happen often, and yes, a DM can fudge the rolls behind a screen if they want, but you can avoid the possibility entirely if SOME enemies simply just can't crit!
I don't agree with the new rules in the Playtest Material that NO enemies can crit - that's just ridiculous, and I'll not be using that rule. But, especially at lower levels, it makes sense to say, "you know what, these Goblins can't crit, because they're just not skilled enough - they know how to fire a bow or swing a sword, but there's no precision, no finesse". It ensures that low level PCs don't die to random chance that is outside their control, it means they survive long enough to get the story going, and THEN they can die.
It also states "that you can choose from" and earlier references a list of premade backgrounds that you can choose from, implying that these are the standard backgrounds from which you can work from. Yes, you can swap them out, but the impression given is that these are the standard ones, which is what is being critiqued. I can modify anything, but that doesn't mean I can't critique the standard models being presented. I can make my own races, but I can still critique how they've made the standard races like Orcs or whatever. You can currently change languages provided by a race...but that doesn't mean we can't critique what the races come with.
You seem to have interpreted "sample" to necessarily mean that these are just random made up ones and won't be the standard "premade" ones intended be the basic choices that from which you choose or alter. I think their names, which match ones we already have, implies that these are the standard ones. The word "sample" means a sample of what we'll get in the PHB.
If they meant that these are just practice runs to show what you can do? I wouldn't use the word sample. I'd use example. For instance "Here are some examples of what you could create using the background creation feature...". Much less ambiguity, no confusion as to what is being sampled, no implication that these are the official ones, just "these are a few we did so you can see what the finished product might look like".
It also says:
"When you choose a Background, you have three options:
Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section."
Again, if people just read what is presented, and use a bit of common sense, they'd know that not all Guards have to speak Dwarvish, not all Farmers need to be Tough, and not all Nobles need to be proficient in a Gaming Set! How many more times do people need them to say "customise what you want", "these are samples", or "you can build your character however you want"? If they didn't provide samples, people would be complaining, but then they do provide them and people are like, "not all guards should speak Dwarvish", instead of reading the document!
Given that you didn't read my post and ignored my point of what is being critiqued, this is ironic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
I find this aversion to PC death one of the worst aspects of 5E, especially since there are multiple "safeguards" built into the mechanics so that it's very, very difficult for a PC to be killed (as in dead DEAD, not trying-to-stabilize-dead) outright with just one strike or damage roll.
It's not an "aversion to PC death", it's "why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"... PC death can have a meaningful impact on the story, it can serve a purpose. But two sessions in and a Goblin happens to Crit an already damaged Wizard with an arrow, and against all odds also rolls max damage? Yeah, that's not serving a purpose, that's just terrible luck. Yes, it's highly unlikely, and yes, it won't happen often, and yes, a DM can fudge the rolls behind a screen if they want, but you can avoid the possibility entirely if SOME enemies simply just can't crit!
I don't agree with the new rules in the Playtest Material that NO enemies can crit - that's just ridiculous, and I'll not be using that rule. But, especially at lower levels, it makes sense to say, "you know what, these Goblins can't crit, because they're just not skilled enough - they know how to fire a bow or swing a sword, but there's no precision, no finesse". It ensures that low level PCs don't die to random chance that is outside their control, it means they survive long enough to get the story going, and THEN they can die.
Again, this is illustrating a big difference in how the game is played and viewed.
I mean, no one wants their character to die, ever. I'm going to respectfully challenge the very premise of your question ("why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"). Adventuring is risky, dangerous, and hard. This is true in the real world, and it's even truer (or should be) in a world with gnolls, dragons, ogres, and mind flayers.
Life is risk and uncertainty. History is full of people, even "great" (meaning people whose influence was more than most) people dying odd, quirky, and unexpected deaths.
"It ensures that low level PCs don't die to random chance that is outside their control"
This sentence feels antithetical to the game to me. If a character doesn't want to risk an untimely death, become a baker or wheelwright instead of an adventurer. Risk of death is part of the deal.
HAVING SAID THAT: As a DM, I'm generally in favor of characters dying as results of bad choices rather than completely random, unpredictable events. (For instance: I'll never kill a PC as a result of a random lightning strike from being outside during a thunderstorm.) But "bad choices" can mean poor tactics, entering a fight they shouldn't have, refusing to withdraw, etc. And yes, ideally, a PC death will have "meaning" to the campaign...but unless you're running a campaign that's rigidly on rails, "meaning" is going to be fluid and flexible. And it's a legit choice to have a campaign with the explicit theme of there is no fate or ultimate meaning.
I really think this boils down to how a player and/or a group defines what is "fun" in D&D. And I know for a lot of players, the idea of a goblin firing a perfect shot with an arrow that ends up critting and killing a first level PC isn't "fun." Which is valid. But it's not the way I define it or play the game.
Balancing really is a hard thing to do. You have people wanting equal characters and equal playing. But the point of this is not everything is equal. The balance comes from a game that has a real feeling of danger while making each player feel like they contribute to the overall success of the group. You have a tank, a healer, a dps, a problem solver.... and whatever you want to throw into the mix. But one character can't be all of these things.
The point of balance is not to see which class has the highest DPS or how to get them to the highest DPS. In a good game there will be characters that have little to no DPS, but they support the team in a different way. What I see people complaining about is just going to create a game that will fail for the same reasons as the movie "The 355". That movie has a group of females in a team that are all James Bond on God mode.
There is nothing to differentiate any of the female leads, they are all bland super assassins. Any 1 character could theoretically succeed in the mission with very little danger. There is no synergy, no need for the group. It fails in every conceivable way. And my point is why would you want to play a game where the characters fall into that same trap or trope?
***For the argument that a Players death has no meaning if he dies in the first session from a random orc arrow "Holds no value". You obviously have not been at a good table top game with fun people. That horrible death is the talk for weeks, a good story teller will weave it in properly, and you roll up another character to get added in later in the story. It is all part of the fun! I remember dying with a suited up paladin because I made a terrible roll while using a raft and falling into the lake in full armor. That made for a terrific night and we all changed how we did water encounters, but the fun was there!
"Don't take the game too seriously!! It is after all a game, meant to entertain!"
The new Lucky feat is a bit problematic, because it's applying advantage after rolling. If you didn't have disadvantage, it's just a reroll and works the same way as it did before. However, if you had disadvantage, it's now complicated, because the effect of advantage on a roll with disadvantage is to negate the disadvantage. So do you:
Roll one die, decide whether to use lucky, and if not, roll the second die for disadvantage?
Roll two dice in order (or with different colors) and remove the second roll if you use lucky?
Roll two dice and choose which you like?
None of those options really feel right to me. The most feasible might be to just change lucky so you have to declare it before rolling (big nerf, but on the other hand they've already given it the ability to work up to six times per day).
That's the current version of lucky, not the new version.
It's badly worded for sure,
I would say the intention would be to work like this:
advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain.
so disadv example, roll two dice, decide to use lucky, pick one of the two dice rolled and apply "adv" to that die, rolling the third die and picking the higher one of the third and picked. then pick the lower of the not picked original and the result of the "adv" picked/rerolled one
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
I feel like this response illustrates a pretty big existing divide amongst folks who play D&D - especially between "old school" (people with experience with older editions, particularly 1E and 2E) and those relatively new to the game.
Because I think it's more than a bit...odd...to view character death as having so much impact as to halt an entire campaign. Character deaths should, IMNSHO, always be a possibility. Not always an equal possibility, mind you (it should be far riskier taking on a dragon than three orcs) but still a possibility. Choosing the adventuring life means choosing risk: it means daring death.
As a DM, my campaign could easily continue even in the face of a TPK, because I'm running a world that doesn't revolve around any one creature, PC, or NPC. Would a TPK alter/affect events in the campaign? Possibly (or likely, the higher level they are) - but it wouldn't stop it. Obviously, a TPK would mean starting again with new characters...but there's no rule that says the new group has to start at level 1.
I find this aversion to PC death one of the worst aspects of 5E, especially since there are multiple "safeguards" built into the mechanics so that it's very, very difficult for a PC to be killed (as in dead DEAD, not trying-to-stabilize-dead) outright with just one strike or damage roll.
Removing critical hits from monsters and NPCs further pushes the DM into the role of ultimately being an XP machine for the players, rather than an active representation for a world full of creatures, things, and beings that are actual challenges to the PCs.
For the record, I love it when my players crit - it's fun for the whole table. I wouldn't dream of taking that away from them. Taking away critical hits from monsters/NPCs seems like further sanding down the edges of the game.
This. I also come from 1E when PC death was accepted as part of the game and the fun. Adventuring is an extremely risky business. At level 1, you should be very vulnerable to death at the hands of a lowly orc and that is ok. The PCs are not heroes yet. Their deeds to come will decide of that. I like 5E a lot but I also feel it did remove most of this constant fear of dying when you first step foot in a dungeon or in the wilderness at level 1. Monster crits was what remained which provided that sense that you could die any moment.
5E allows us to spend hours creating interesting and distinctive PCs. PC creation is more fun than it has ever been and a big part of the DnD experience now. But the downside is that we get attached to our creations too quickly I find, we make the PCs the central part of the story to fast, and we are less willing to accept that they are actually going out there to literally risk their life for something (money, fame, justice, whatever). Without a real risk of failure, there is no real success is it?
Monsters critting and dice rolls in general also make for good storytelling. Recently, one of my players' 3rd lvl goblin ranger got surrounded by orcs and after killing many, he fell to a crit. On his last death saving throw (he had missed two already) he rolled a 20. Thus he got an hp back. He laid there playing dead and when the orcs looked the other way, he rolled behind a large stalagmite (Hide action) and proceeded with difficulty to stealthily climb down a crevasse to an underground river. A few checks later (no automatic misses on 1s fortunately), he was at the bottom of that 200-foot crevasse all alone (the other PCs had left him for dead and were chased away by the orcs) at 1 hp and he now needs to get out. If that orc did not crit initially, the ranger would have probably killed the last orcs and went on with his business as usual. But now, through an interesting turn of events initiated by a monster crit, things got complicated and the player is very much excited to see what is in store for his PC. And for those who wonder, he had already accepted his PC's death prior to the last death save.
So for me, removing crits for monsters is something I do not like (same for no spell crits). I will playtest it though. Maybe I will change my mind.
I have officially checked out the PDF now and here are some thoughts...
The Good
Dragonborn have Darkvision now. This is awesome as they always should have had some level of it in my opinion! I definitely hope this is a trait which will carry over from the playtest material.
The Slowed condition could be fun and a good weapon for DMs to make fights more intense. As a player, it scares me for the damage it could do but mechanically it's a fun tactic I would like to see in an encounter. There's a difficult terrain vibe to it...again I find this to be one of the small good parts to the PDF.
Teiflings having a type to their linage is a nice way to do subclasses for them and reflect which type of demon might be in their mix.
I like the free Feat to start with because it lets players experience them and maybe tempts them into picking another instead of doing stat boosts only. I'm unsure about the level locked element but we'll see how it goes as more comes out. I don't know if this will start a shift of players taking Feats like maybe the creators hope but it's an interesting start and maybe we'll see more Feats created to tempt players more because right now some Feats just aren't worth it long term in comparison to maybe a +1 to AC or a +1 to your spell DC/attack.
The Okay
Build A Background - it has potential, but man does the money side of it need to be fixed; it is busted on that front as no way a Hermit should have more starting gold than a Guide. Same for a cultist having almost as much as noble. I know the lines say you can change things so the languages could change, but they should have just said "Pick one" for the section because even if you just go by the base format some of the language selections don't make sense to the background; again I know you can change them but if someone is just taking this as a face value example it's got issues visually.
Spells being categorized by "nature" - this could be fun but again we have to see how it effects Clerics and Paladins when the class PDF comes out.
Humans, elves, and teiflings feel like power builds just waiting to happen as they are laid out currently.
Inspiration - we get it Wizards, you want it used more given how many ways a player can get it now. This just feels like it's asking to be the new gold in where at a point you have so much you forget to use it because it kind of loses meaning. I like you can pass some of it around but again I can already see players still forgetting they have it because there's so many way to get it now and it's use it before a long rest or lose it so I'd bet a lot more gets wasted than used in the first years of a new system especially.
The Bad
The half race concept; this is horrific and not a true half race. Yes it's nice to see them canonize half races beyond your standard ones right now, but a half race is half A and half B not just all one or the other. If people can do the math for critical rolls what's so hard about basic division for racial math? If parent A has Darkvision of 60ft and parent B has Darkvision of 120ft then you have 90ft; if the walking speed is both 30ft then you have 30ft it's not hard! Wizards can build backgrounds with a format but can't write in the race section "Pick one racial trait from parent A and one racial trait from parent B - these are your starting racial traits as a half race"...again it's not hard.
I love the rulebook says to ignore what you don't like because I will 100% be ignoring this to make real half races. Half races are more than just their skin tones and physical features. I get this PDF playtest set up is the easy approach but thematically it's the wrong choice as again these are not true half races.
The Musician Feat feels like it's stealing the Bard's main trick in giving out inspiration so I don't like it at all.
Nat 20s equaling an automatic success on anything is not good. If you want to say for attacks it trumps stuff because it's so rare okay, but you will create a lot of story issues if you say a Nat 20 trumps everything. Maybe again it's the language of the wording right now with the PDF, but Nat 20s also only effecting PCs is not good; anything he PCs can do the DM bad guys should be able to do as well so if a player can get a double dice hit then the DM should be able as well, they are a player as well after all.
Again maybe a language issue but spell damage should double as well if you get a Nat 20 on an attack, it should not just be for weapons.
Humans getting Inspiration just for being a human...why? Thematically that makes no sense! It seems like a lot of this PDF is based on thematics so even more reason this should be stricken out.
Overall I'd rate this outting a C+. It has some content that's the same but just a new name label and that's not impressive. There are some good elements to it but what I'm most remembering right now is how bad the bad elements are to me and that's not good. We'll see how the rest go, but as of right now I see nothing that makes the next edition really worth going to over the current PHB.
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
If people get it wrong on the first read, they need to pay more attention - this attitude of "if I don't understand it the first time then it's badly written" is why there are constant debates about the official rules here, on Quora and on Reddit. If everyone misunderstood, then fine, you'd have a point. If it wasn't clearly labelled as "Sample Backgrounds", as the section header, then you'd have a point. But people clearly read "Samples" and it's clearly labelled, so misunderstandings are user error, not presentation error.
on the note of "omg crits are so dangerous at T1!" this is why you fudge. Also it's T1! Like, bruh. What did you expect??? If you don't want them to die then just say "death won't be permanent until level 3" or whatever. (If you didn't want the randomness then honestly why are you rolling tbh)
Some people don't like to fudge... Some people think it makes more sense that some/most/all commoners, goblins, bandits, kobolds, etc. just aren't skilled enough to land a crit... The fact is that Crits can be dangerous at Tier 1, and it can ruin everyone's fun if a PC straight up dies because a Goblin got a lucky shot... Granted, all tables are different, so you do it your way and we'll do it ours, but when I see someone say, "Why can't I crit as a DM? What about my fun?", I read it as, "I'm a sadistic DM that delights in potentially killing my PCs, who are supposed to be the heroes of the story".
on the note of "omg crits are so dangerous at T1!" this is why you fudge. Also it's T1! Like, bruh. What did you expect??? If you don't want them to die then just say "death won't be permanent until level 3" or whatever. (If you didn't want the randomness then honestly why are you rolling tbh)
This seems really silly to me. You're admitting the rules are bad if your actual advice to get around their obvious shortcomings is to "just cheat!". What if I don't want to cheat, but don't want to kill my players with the weakest monsters available?
Yeah, seems strange to advocate in-game "cheating" rather than just prepping monsters that can't do the thing that would tempt you to cheat in the first place...
A critical hit drastically changing the outcome of a battle, especially at low levels? I mean, yeah.
That is the point critical hits, to cause moments of both terror and triumph in equal measure. Why not get rid of critical hits completely if you don't like that they have an impact on the game?
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
Oh here we ****in' go. Let me ask you, when is the DM supposed to have fun in your scenario?
The DM feels bad when they roll like shit because no one likes to roll like shit.
The DM is SUPPOSED to feel bad when they roll well, otherwise they're an evil bastard.
The DM feels bad when the party ruffle stomps the big bad in 1 or 2 rounds because now this fight that was supposed to be epic was just a cake walk because you failed with your attack and failed a save and now they got paralyzed/stunned and the paladin crit and the fighter crit and the wizard casted disintegrate and now the big bad is insta dead and the fight meant nothing. The cool boss you made with all his cool abilities got to use none of them and all that prep time was wasted.
The DM feels bad when the party loses because they're supposed to and now the other players are sad they've lost their PCs/failed the mission.
The DM never feels good in your scenario. They never have fun. Because according to you we're evil shits when we dare to be happy we rolled well that night. Only the PCs are allowed to be happy about their rolls.
The dungeon master is also a player. They're fun also matters. If the DM isn't having fun then the whole game suffers. Treating the DM as just some XP generator for your power fantasy is bullshit. I'm tired of being called evil just because I laugh during the games I run. I'm tired of everyone saying I'm trying to kill them on purpose just because I rolled well and made a mistake in encounter balance. I'm tired of being called evil just because I enjoy running deadly games. I hate rolling in public because I know that if I don't I'll just get called evil again.
I'm tired of being told I'm not allowed to have fun as a DM because only the PCs' fun is virtuous and good. I'm tired of being told I should only have fun in doing prep-work that PCs won't care about because NPCs don't matter unless they directly connect to the PCs whilst the rest of the world you made is ignored.
Humans getting Inspiration just for being a human...why? Thematically that makes no sense! It seems like a lot of this PDF is based on thematics so even more reason this should be stricken out.
My assumption is that it functions much like the ASI feature functions for humans in the current version: to give players an incentive to choose human as a race. In older editions, class and level limitations served to make humans the most attractive race option. In 5E, with no class or level restrictions, people have to have some kind of mechanical/feature advantage to choose human. Otherwise, why would you? Basically every other race has more innate traits and abilities.
I have a feeling being Surprised now makes you Incapacitated until the end of your first turn in combat and that you have Disadvantage to initiative to increase the chance of lower turn count.
If people get it wrong on the first read, they need to pay more attention - this attitude of "if I don't understand it the first time then it's badly written" is why there are constant debates about the official rules here, on Quora and on Reddit.
Those constant debates are because the 5e rules are badly written. There's no way you can make a set of rules that will be perfectly understood by everyone, but you can do a lot better than 5e has done.
How could they possibly make it clearer though? There's a big Subtitle/Header at the start of the section that says "Sample Backgrounds", and the first paragraph in that section reiterates they are all samples... How could that be any clearer? Bigger letters? Red font? A few exclamation marks?
You don't put them that way at all, because it's really not useful. Instead, you give a worked example of how you decide these things. Or you just split things up. The reality is that languages known are a background trait, but they aren't actually related to your job.
It's not an "aversion to PC death", it's "why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"... PC death can have a meaningful impact on the story, it can serve a purpose. But two sessions in and a Goblin happens to Crit an already damaged Wizard with an arrow, and against all odds also rolls max damage? Yeah, that's not serving a purpose, that's just terrible luck. Yes, it's highly unlikely, and yes, it won't happen often, and yes, a DM can fudge the rolls behind a screen if they want, but you can avoid the possibility entirely if SOME enemies simply just can't crit!
Fundamentally, what removing critical hits does is make monster damage output more predictable; 5e makes individual PC death (as opposed to a TPK) very unlikely. Personally I think it's a bit too unlikely and contributes to the whac-a-mole nature of 5e combat, though the 3e orcs that could crit for 45 damage were a tad silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They clearly state in the video, and calling auto-success/fail out for emphasis, that this is an experiment for the playtest to see how well it works. It is definitely not set in stone. Give your feedback when the survey goes live and let them have it.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
That is the point critical hits, to cause moments of both terror and triumph in equal measure. Why not get rid of critical hits completely if you don't like that they have an impact on the game?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If people get it wrong on the first read, they need to pay more attention - this attitude of "if I don't understand it the first time then it's badly written" is why there are constant debates about the official rules here, on Quora and on Reddit. If everyone misunderstood, then fine, you'd have a point. If it wasn't clearly labelled as "Sample Backgrounds", as the section header, then you'd have a point. But people clearly read "Samples" and it's clearly labelled, so misunderstandings are user error, not presentation error.
Some people don't like to fudge... Some people think it makes more sense that some/most/all commoners, goblins, bandits, kobolds, etc. just aren't skilled enough to land a crit... The fact is that Crits can be dangerous at Tier 1, and it can ruin everyone's fun if a PC straight up dies because a Goblin got a lucky shot... Granted, all tables are different, so you do it your way and we'll do it ours, but when I see someone say, "Why can't I crit as a DM? What about my fun?", I read it as, "I'm a sadistic DM that delights in potentially killing my PCs, who are supposed to be the heroes of the story".
Yeah, seems strange to advocate in-game "cheating" rather than just prepping monsters that can't do the thing that would tempt you to cheat in the first place...
Player Crits are fun for the majority (as a DM I also love it when a player crits, but I know not all DMs agree, because some are confrontational, and seem to have a DM vs Players mindset in combat). DMPC Crits, especially at low levels, can easily kill characters, and maybe even stop a campaign.
And to show that none of us are infallible - since the PDF was released, I was thinking a characters starting equipment was just what they could afford with the 50gp from their background - meaning no one could reasonably start with Scale Mail, because that's all their Gold spent. Then I re-read the "Character Origin Overview" table and seen:
Equipment: A Background provides a portion of a character's starting equipment, with the rest coming from Class.
It's not the fault of the presentation that I missed this the first time, it's my own fault for not reading it correctly.
Some. However, if there is a large enough group of people misunderstanding what you're saying...well, you're the common factor. While the reader as the responsibility to attempt to parse what someone says, the speaker also has the responsibility to make themselves clear. If a non negligible number of people are misunderstanding what a writer writes, then the onus is on the writer make it clearer. There is a reason why I'm writing this in English rather than Italian - despite the reader having all the tools necessary to translate it. If players, the target audience, are not understanding something, then there's a problem with how it's written.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How could they possibly make it clearer though? There's a big Subtitle/Header at the start of the section that says "Sample Backgrounds", and the first paragraph in that section reiterates they are all samples... How could that be any clearer? Bigger letters? Red font? A few exclamation marks?
It also states "that you can choose from" and earlier references a list of premade backgrounds that you can choose from, implying that these are the standard backgrounds from which you can work from. Yes, you can swap them out, but the impression given is that these are the standard ones, which is what is being critiqued. I can modify anything, but that doesn't mean I can't critique the standard models being presented. I can make my own races, but I can still critique how they've made the standard races like Orcs or whatever. You can currently change languages provided by a race...but that doesn't mean we can't critique what the races come with.
You seem to have interpreted "sample" to necessarily mean that these are just random made up ones and won't be the standard "premade" ones intended be the basic choices that from which you choose or alter. I think their names, which match ones we already have, implies that these are the standard ones. The word "sample" means a sample of what we'll get in the PHB.
If they meant that these are just practice runs to show what you can do? I wouldn't use the word sample. I'd use example. For instance "Here are some examples of what you could create using the background creation feature...". Much less ambiguity, no confusion as to what is being sampled, no implication that these are the official ones, just "these are a few we did so you can see what the finished product might look like".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I feel like this response illustrates a pretty big existing divide amongst folks who play D&D - especially between "old school" (people with experience with older editions, particularly 1E and 2E) and those relatively new to the game.
Because I think it's more than a bit...odd...to view character death as having so much impact as to halt an entire campaign. Character deaths should, IMNSHO, always be a possibility. Not always an equal possibility, mind you (it should be far riskier taking on a dragon than three orcs) but still a possibility. Choosing the adventuring life means choosing risk: it means daring death.
As a DM, my campaign could easily continue even in the face of a TPK, because I'm running a world that doesn't revolve around any one creature, PC, or NPC. Would a TPK alter/affect events in the campaign? Possibly (or likely, the higher level they are) - but it wouldn't stop it. Obviously, a TPK would mean starting again with new characters...but there's no rule that says the new group has to start at level 1.
I find this aversion to PC death one of the worst aspects of 5E, especially since there are multiple "safeguards" built into the mechanics so that it's very, very difficult for a PC to be killed (as in dead DEAD, not trying-to-stabilize-dead) outright with just one strike or damage roll.
Removing critical hits from monsters and NPCs further pushes the DM into the role of ultimately being an XP machine for the players, rather than an active representation for a world full of creatures, things, and beings that are actual challenges to the PCs.
For the record, I love it when my players crit - it's fun for the whole table. I wouldn't dream of taking that away from them. Taking away critical hits from monsters/NPCs seems like further sanding down the edges of the game.
It also says:
"When you choose a Background, you have three options:
Again, if people just read what is presented, and use a bit of common sense, they'd know that not all Guards have to speak Dwarvish, not all Farmers need to be Tough, and not all Nobles need to be proficient in a Gaming Set! How many more times do people need them to say "customise what you want", "these are samples", or "you can build your character however you want"? If they didn't provide samples, people would be complaining, but then they do provide them and people are like, "not all guards should speak Dwarvish", instead of reading the document!
It's not an "aversion to PC death", it's "why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"... PC death can have a meaningful impact on the story, it can serve a purpose. But two sessions in and a Goblin happens to Crit an already damaged Wizard with an arrow, and against all odds also rolls max damage? Yeah, that's not serving a purpose, that's just terrible luck. Yes, it's highly unlikely, and yes, it won't happen often, and yes, a DM can fudge the rolls behind a screen if they want, but you can avoid the possibility entirely if SOME enemies simply just can't crit!
I don't agree with the new rules in the Playtest Material that NO enemies can crit - that's just ridiculous, and I'll not be using that rule. But, especially at lower levels, it makes sense to say, "you know what, these Goblins can't crit, because they're just not skilled enough - they know how to fire a bow or swing a sword, but there's no precision, no finesse". It ensures that low level PCs don't die to random chance that is outside their control, it means they survive long enough to get the story going, and THEN they can die.
Given that you didn't read my post and ignored my point of what is being critiqued, this is ironic.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Again, this is illustrating a big difference in how the game is played and viewed.
I mean, no one wants their character to die, ever. I'm going to respectfully challenge the very premise of your question ("why would I want a PC to die as the result of poor luck so early in the game"). Adventuring is risky, dangerous, and hard. This is true in the real world, and it's even truer (or should be) in a world with gnolls, dragons, ogres, and mind flayers.
Life is risk and uncertainty. History is full of people, even "great" (meaning people whose influence was more than most) people dying odd, quirky, and unexpected deaths.
"It ensures that low level PCs don't die to random chance that is outside their control"
This sentence feels antithetical to the game to me. If a character doesn't want to risk an untimely death, become a baker or wheelwright instead of an adventurer. Risk of death is part of the deal.
HAVING SAID THAT: As a DM, I'm generally in favor of characters dying as results of bad choices rather than completely random, unpredictable events. (For instance: I'll never kill a PC as a result of a random lightning strike from being outside during a thunderstorm.) But "bad choices" can mean poor tactics, entering a fight they shouldn't have, refusing to withdraw, etc. And yes, ideally, a PC death will have "meaning" to the campaign...but unless you're running a campaign that's rigidly on rails, "meaning" is going to be fluid and flexible. And it's a legit choice to have a campaign with the explicit theme of there is no fate or ultimate meaning.
I really think this boils down to how a player and/or a group defines what is "fun" in D&D. And I know for a lot of players, the idea of a goblin firing a perfect shot with an arrow that ends up critting and killing a first level PC isn't "fun." Which is valid. But it's not the way I define it or play the game.
Balancing really is a hard thing to do. You have people wanting equal characters and equal playing. But the point of this is not everything is equal. The balance comes from a game that has a real feeling of danger while making each player feel like they contribute to the overall success of the group. You have a tank, a healer, a dps, a problem solver.... and whatever you want to throw into the mix. But one character can't be all of these things.
The point of balance is not to see which class has the highest DPS or how to get them to the highest DPS. In a good game there will be characters that have little to no DPS, but they support the team in a different way. What I see people complaining about is just going to create a game that will fail for the same reasons as the movie "The 355". That movie has a group of females in a team that are all James Bond on God mode.
There is nothing to differentiate any of the female leads, they are all bland super assassins. Any 1 character could theoretically succeed in the mission with very little danger. There is no synergy, no need for the group. It fails in every conceivable way. And my point is why would you want to play a game where the characters fall into that same trap or trope?
***For the argument that a Players death has no meaning if he dies in the first session from a random orc arrow "Holds no value". You obviously have not been at a good table top game with fun people. That horrible death is the talk for weeks, a good story teller will weave it in properly, and you roll up another character to get added in later in the story. It is all part of the fun! I remember dying with a suited up paladin because I made a terrible roll while using a raft and falling into the lake in full armor. That made for a terrific night and we all changed how we did water encounters, but the fun was there!
"Don't take the game too seriously!! It is after all a game, meant to entertain!"
I am not sure what my Spirit Animal is. But whatever that thing is, I am pretty sure it has rabies!
It's badly worded for sure,
I would say the intention would be to work like this:
advantage and disadvantage to play their normal roles even when the Lucky feat is used, here’s a way to do so: roll two d20s for advantage/disadvantage, roll a third d20 for Lucky, eliminate one of the three dice, and then use the higher (for advantage) or lower (for disadvantage) of the two dice that remain.
so disadv example,
roll two dice, decide to use lucky, pick one of the two dice rolled and apply "adv" to that die, rolling the third die and picking the higher one of the third and picked.
then pick the lower of the not picked original and the result of the "adv" picked/rerolled one
This. I also come from 1E when PC death was accepted as part of the game and the fun. Adventuring is an extremely risky business. At level 1, you should be very vulnerable to death at the hands of a lowly orc and that is ok. The PCs are not heroes yet. Their deeds to come will decide of that. I like 5E a lot but I also feel it did remove most of this constant fear of dying when you first step foot in a dungeon or in the wilderness at level 1. Monster crits was what remained which provided that sense that you could die any moment.
5E allows us to spend hours creating interesting and distinctive PCs. PC creation is more fun than it has ever been and a big part of the DnD experience now. But the downside is that we get attached to our creations too quickly I find, we make the PCs the central part of the story to fast, and we are less willing to accept that they are actually going out there to literally risk their life for something (money, fame, justice, whatever). Without a real risk of failure, there is no real success is it?
Monsters critting and dice rolls in general also make for good storytelling. Recently, one of my players' 3rd lvl goblin ranger got surrounded by orcs and after killing many, he fell to a crit. On his last death saving throw (he had missed two already) he rolled a 20. Thus he got an hp back. He laid there playing dead and when the orcs looked the other way, he rolled behind a large stalagmite (Hide action) and proceeded with difficulty to stealthily climb down a crevasse to an underground river. A few checks later (no automatic misses on 1s fortunately), he was at the bottom of that 200-foot crevasse all alone (the other PCs had left him for dead and were chased away by the orcs) at 1 hp and he now needs to get out. If that orc did not crit initially, the ranger would have probably killed the last orcs and went on with his business as usual. But now, through an interesting turn of events initiated by a monster crit, things got complicated and the player is very much excited to see what is in store for his PC. And for those who wonder, he had already accepted his PC's death prior to the last death save.
So for me, removing crits for monsters is something I do not like (same for no spell crits). I will playtest it though. Maybe I will change my mind.
I have officially checked out the PDF now and here are some thoughts...
The Good
Dragonborn have Darkvision now. This is awesome as they always should have had some level of it in my opinion! I definitely hope this is a trait which will carry over from the playtest material.
The Slowed condition could be fun and a good weapon for DMs to make fights more intense. As a player, it scares me for the damage it could do but mechanically it's a fun tactic I would like to see in an encounter. There's a difficult terrain vibe to it...again I find this to be one of the small good parts to the PDF.
Teiflings having a type to their linage is a nice way to do subclasses for them and reflect which type of demon might be in their mix.
I like the free Feat to start with because it lets players experience them and maybe tempts them into picking another instead of doing stat boosts only. I'm unsure about the level locked element but we'll see how it goes as more comes out. I don't know if this will start a shift of players taking Feats like maybe the creators hope but it's an interesting start and maybe we'll see more Feats created to tempt players more because right now some Feats just aren't worth it long term in comparison to maybe a +1 to AC or a +1 to your spell DC/attack.
The Okay
Build A Background - it has potential, but man does the money side of it need to be fixed; it is busted on that front as no way a Hermit should have more starting gold than a Guide. Same for a cultist having almost as much as noble. I know the lines say you can change things so the languages could change, but they should have just said "Pick one" for the section because even if you just go by the base format some of the language selections don't make sense to the background; again I know you can change them but if someone is just taking this as a face value example it's got issues visually.
Spells being categorized by "nature" - this could be fun but again we have to see how it effects Clerics and Paladins when the class PDF comes out.
Humans, elves, and teiflings feel like power builds just waiting to happen as they are laid out currently.
Inspiration - we get it Wizards, you want it used more given how many ways a player can get it now. This just feels like it's asking to be the new gold in where at a point you have so much you forget to use it because it kind of loses meaning. I like you can pass some of it around but again I can already see players still forgetting they have it because there's so many way to get it now and it's use it before a long rest or lose it so I'd bet a lot more gets wasted than used in the first years of a new system especially.
The Bad
The half race concept; this is horrific and not a true half race. Yes it's nice to see them canonize half races beyond your standard ones right now, but a half race is half A and half B not just all one or the other. If people can do the math for critical rolls what's so hard about basic division for racial math? If parent A has Darkvision of 60ft and parent B has Darkvision of 120ft then you have 90ft; if the walking speed is both 30ft then you have 30ft it's not hard! Wizards can build backgrounds with a format but can't write in the race section "Pick one racial trait from parent A and one racial trait from parent B - these are your starting racial traits as a half race"...again it's not hard.
I love the rulebook says to ignore what you don't like because I will 100% be ignoring this to make real half races. Half races are more than just their skin tones and physical features. I get this PDF playtest set up is the easy approach but thematically it's the wrong choice as again these are not true half races.
The Musician Feat feels like it's stealing the Bard's main trick in giving out inspiration so I don't like it at all.
Nat 20s equaling an automatic success on anything is not good. If you want to say for attacks it trumps stuff because it's so rare okay, but you will create a lot of story issues if you say a Nat 20 trumps everything. Maybe again it's the language of the wording right now with the PDF, but Nat 20s also only effecting PCs is not good; anything he PCs can do the DM bad guys should be able to do as well so if a player can get a double dice hit then the DM should be able as well, they are a player as well after all.
Again maybe a language issue but spell damage should double as well if you get a Nat 20 on an attack, it should not just be for weapons.
Humans getting Inspiration just for being a human...why? Thematically that makes no sense! It seems like a lot of this PDF is based on thematics so even more reason this should be stricken out.
Overall I'd rate this outting a C+. It has some content that's the same but just a new name label and that's not impressive. There are some good elements to it but what I'm most remembering right now is how bad the bad elements are to me and that's not good. We'll see how the rest go, but as of right now I see nothing that makes the next edition really worth going to over the current PHB.
Oh here we ****in' go. Let me ask you, when is the DM supposed to have fun in your scenario?
The DM feels bad when they roll like shit because no one likes to roll like shit.
The DM is SUPPOSED to feel bad when they roll well, otherwise they're an evil bastard.
The DM feels bad when the party ruffle stomps the big bad in 1 or 2 rounds because now this fight that was supposed to be epic was just a cake walk because you failed with your attack and failed a save and now they got paralyzed/stunned and the paladin crit and the fighter crit and the wizard casted disintegrate and now the big bad is insta dead and the fight meant nothing. The cool boss you made with all his cool abilities got to use none of them and all that prep time was wasted.
The DM feels bad when the party loses because they're supposed to and now the other players are sad they've lost their PCs/failed the mission.
The DM never feels good in your scenario. They never have fun. Because according to you we're evil shits when we dare to be happy we rolled well that night. Only the PCs are allowed to be happy about their rolls.
The dungeon master is also a player. They're fun also matters. If the DM isn't having fun then the whole game suffers. Treating the DM as just some XP generator for your power fantasy is bullshit. I'm tired of being called evil just because I laugh during the games I run. I'm tired of everyone saying I'm trying to kill them on purpose just because I rolled well and made a mistake in encounter balance. I'm tired of being called evil just because I enjoy running deadly games. I hate rolling in public because I know that if I don't I'll just get called evil again.
I'm tired of being told I'm not allowed to have fun as a DM because only the PCs' fun is virtuous and good. I'm tired of being told I should only have fun in doing prep-work that PCs won't care about because NPCs don't matter unless they directly connect to the PCs whilst the rest of the world you made is ignored.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
My assumption is that it functions much like the ASI feature functions for humans in the current version: to give players an incentive to choose human as a race. In older editions, class and level limitations served to make humans the most attractive race option. In 5E, with no class or level restrictions, people have to have some kind of mechanical/feature advantage to choose human. Otherwise, why would you? Basically every other race has more innate traits and abilities.
I have a feeling being Surprised now makes you Incapacitated until the end of your first turn in combat and that you have Disadvantage to initiative to increase the chance of lower turn count.
Those constant debates are because the 5e rules are badly written. There's no way you can make a set of rules that will be perfectly understood by everyone, but you can do a lot better than 5e has done.
You don't put them that way at all, because it's really not useful. Instead, you give a worked example of how you decide these things. Or you just split things up. The reality is that languages known are a background trait, but they aren't actually related to your job.
Fundamentally, what removing critical hits does is make monster damage output more predictable; 5e makes individual PC death (as opposed to a TPK) very unlikely. Personally I think it's a bit too unlikely and contributes to the whac-a-mole nature of 5e combat, though the 3e orcs that could crit for 45 damage were a tad silly.