I am pleasantly surprised by how much I like this playtest.
I think the race options are really good. I like the half race rules, the dwarf and halfling consolidation, and while WotC and I will not agree about how to rethink the drow, I like the elven lineages.The gnome lineages table has got to go though. We can't have a table spanning two pages like that. It makes my skin crawl.
I don't love the ardling, but I don't play a lot of celestials or beastfolk so the ardling isn't really meant for me. Yurei1453 made a really good point, I believe much earlier in this thread, about the ardling being a way to represent celestial origins and have universal coverage for anthropomorphic characters built right into the PHB. It's not for me, but I see why it should be included.
I like the background rules, I've always preferred to cobble my own background together. Even still, I love the diversity of the sample backgrounds.
I love the inclusion of sign language as a common language. I've played a mute and deaf character and it would have been much harder if there wasn't a rogue in the party. Speaking of languages, I really wish linguist was a 1st level feat. Some people like getting proficiency in as many skills as possible, I love collecting as many languages as possible as early as possible.
I love the phrase "d20 test". Sure, it's a little clumsy, test isn't my favorite word, but it eliminates the phrase "ability check, attack roll, or saving throw" which is a win for homebrewers and designers. I can't wait to use it in my homebrew.
To the issue of inspiration, I would love to see Nat 1s given inspiration instead of Nat 20s. Natural 1s can be leadening. They can make a slow session slower or make a desperate situation unbearable. Giving inspiration would mean that players needn't despair; they have learned from their failures and will do better at something else.
To the hot topic of critical hits. I would like to see spells, sneak attack, and smites retain their current effects on a Nat 20. Monsters... well... I use monster critical hits in my game and I have killed a Tier 1 PC with one (yes, it was their first time playing, I gave the player as much agency in how long they stayed dead as I could, they were a good sport about it, and they were resurrected). As an experienced DM, I know I can take the risk of low level PC death. Do I think every table should take that risk? ...No. PC deaths are messy and without access to resurrection magic, it can be pretty upsetting. For a new DM with new players, monsters without crits seems perfectly fine. I would encourage more experienced players and DMs to take on the risk of death via the hands of a nat 20 but I would not force it upon them.
I like the spell lists, but until we see how classes work, getting worked up about them seems pointless. I notice that eldritch blast is not on any of the spell lists yet hex, hellish rebuke, and other classic warlock spells are on the Arcane spell list. I wonder what this means for the iconic spell. Is it becoming a class feature?
I'm curious about what others think about the use of proper nouns. Action, Bonus Action, Tool Proficiency, Weapon, Spell, everything is getting capitalized. I'm guessing that the reasoning behind this is to differentiate mechanics from flavor text in very clear terms. But it gives the mechanics this very stilted style. How does it read to you? Is this a change you care about or am I engaging in pedantry?
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
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.
This very much distills my specific and philosophical objections to some of the new rules. I haven't been able to put my finger on it previously, but this articulates it nicely.
Everything is geared at making player experiences more "fun" while basically ignoring what's fun for the DM. The DM is essentially treated as a dice/XP/silly voice machine, not an actual player at the table (albeit one with final rules authority and more responsibility than everyone else). DMing can be a LOT of work (and so much of the time, most of your prep is invisible to the players or not even used) and it's frustrating that as 5E (and now ONED&D) has expanded and grown, it's done so in ways that for the most part treat DMs as necessary evils or unimportant in terms of the fun being had.
Reminder: this is the Character Origins document for the One D&D Player's Handbook playtest. There's a reason the current document up for testing feels player-centric.
Is this just for playtest with the pdf or are there dndbeyond digital options to test them?
DDB is, sadly, sticking to its guns on not building/implementing UA content. The source is available to view here and DDB hosts discussions for it, and obviously anything that can be homebrewed (or simply ruled, like the Inspiration and critical changes) are welcome testing options for people, but DDB will not be implementing the new chargen method or the newly reduxed feats. It's too much of a lift for the current DDB team to stay on top of UA, especially when we're looking at a cycle of rapid content releases that heavily muck with the core structure of the game.
After finishing the video here are some thoughts I'm having...
1) I hate how they're doing half races with the UA. Mechanically they are locking you into one race and the whole fun of being a mix raced is having mixed features to play with; if I have to pick between dwarf and goblin to play I might as well just be a dwarf or goblin. Like I get the idea of a dominate gene they're maybe going for thematically, but the execution limits your PC when so much else to the UA opens it for customization.
I would definitely spend time thinking up a way to edit half races if I was the creators because I can't see this one going over well the more you break it down. It's pretty easy now to edit it too - half speeds if there's a difference in them and the same for Darkvision. Let the player pick a racial trait from each side...it's not hard and feels like a real mixed race versus saying your half orc and half elf but mechanically you're playing the same as if you picked elf or orc from the start.
Again not a fan of this.
2) Critical success on a Nat 20...again I get it to a degree but that is going to blow up so many DM plans I feel. Also you can argue that it invalidates motives for NPCs and PCs because if the DM rolls a 20 to have you change your mind you could end up fighting your party even if you never would beyond a spell or you reveal something even if you never would otherwise and vice versa. I'm for rewarding Nat 20s in more areas because they are rare arguably, but saying it automatically succeeds in the face of everything...that might be a bit too much.
3) I like the idea of a build your own background to bring in customization that way. We'll have to see how easy it is as I haven't checked out the PDF yet, but I am probably most intrigued by this!
4) A free Feat at level 1 has potential. I feel this is a way to tempt people into picking them more instead of uupping their Stats all the time only. Ha We'll have to see if they're any good or if they've been nerfed any to fit "level one".
5) Again they mention doing three +1s as part as the variant system to which I say, why can't we have one +3 then too? If you can break down the +2 why can't you add in the +1?! Seriously, what's the difference in adding a +2 to an 18 to get a 20 at level one for a stat and adding a +3 to a 17 to do it or even adding the +3 to a -8 to get an 11 so you don't have negatives to your PC (some people don't like negatives).
This video update feels even more like a set up for "do it your way" because everything is basically here's some pregenerated stuff for you, but ideally you do it yourself to make it as much your character as you can and like I like it overall in the theme but again some of the executions feel like a step back more than being a good thing long run. That's why it's playtest though and we have to vote in the surveys! 🙂 Also, even if this does become rulebook material the rulebook itself tells you you can ignore it and so that's what most will do. Ha
It was an interesting video and I think it has some pros for sure, but there were also some noticeable missteps for me; mainly the treatment of half races and how they would mechanically play as a standard one race.
I also agree with some of the statements I've seen recently talking about spells not doing double damage on a Nat 20...a Nat 20 is rare and so it should be rewarded on all types of attacks not just physical weapon damage.
1: With your example what are the current stats for Half-Goblin/Dwarf? Do you homebrew it? What is stopping you from doing that with the new rule?
2: Your example is not how the game works RAW. Social interactions have rules and a nat 20 isn't mind control. Equally, DMs should only be calling for a roll or rolling if there is a need. Not every roll. If it is impossible to change the PCs minds the DM shouldn't be rolling. Vice-versa applies as well.
3: I agree.
4: I've been running feats at level 1 for forever now, I like it.
5: Bounded Accuracy. Same reason races that get +2 to a specific and +1 to choice couldn't choose the same stat.
I do agree with the fact I like the move towards "do it your way" rulebooking, but I know a lot of people who need clear defined rules for their games so I can understand the upset.
I think no spell crits is a long time needed. Spells already have greater range than a lot of attacks, better damage, additional effects, etc. There is no need to double already greater damage. Same with smites and sneak attacks.
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.
Again, I'm specifically talking about removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, nothing more... The new rule that monsters can't crit at all is ridiculous and I'll NOT be using it, but there is value in removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, if only so they can be sure to survive a few levels and get into the main part of the story...
Individual PC death is only as unlikely, or likely, as the DM makes it (granted, it's helped a little by PCs making stupid decisions)... The Rogue in my party recently ran right up to a Dire Troll, did some damage, but left themselves without a way to get away, out of reach or range... The Dire Troll, as Dire Trolls do, attacked the Rogue with ALL FIVE of its attacks, even though the Rogue was downed after the third one! Why? Because the Rogue had significantly hurt it, it's not an entirely stupid creature, and it's chaotic evil - when it kills something, it makes sure the enemy is dead! Now, this PC was dead dead, no death saves, no yo-yo healing, no whac-a-mole, just dead... We (the rest of the party) dispatched of the trolls a few rounds later, and my Cleric took out her 300gp Diamond, ran over, and went to cast Revivify, but an NPC that was with us stopped me and said, "It won't work, his lungs are punctured, there is blood pooling in them, the wounds are so severe that bringing him back now will cause him to die again instantly" - side note, I was NOT happy with this, we're only Level 6, I'd gotten this Diamond back at Level 2 for THIS EXACT KIND OF SCENARIO, I'm a Cleric in a party that can almost all heal themselves in some way, this was my ONE job, and I couldn't do it, but, it's for the story - the point is, yes, individual PC death CAN happen, if the DM chooses for it to happen, but when they do, it best serve the story in some way...
Anyways, point I'm making is - I also disagree with the new rule, my monsters will crit as I see fit, I just don't think it serves any purpose to crit low level PCs with low level monsters...
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.
Again, I'm specifically talking about removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, nothing more... The new rule that monsters can't crit at all is ridiculous and I'll NOT be using it, but there is value in removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, if only so they can be sure to survive a few levels and get into the main part of the story...
Individual PC death is only as unlikely, or likely, as the DM makes it (granted, it's helped a little by PCs making stupid decisions)... The Rogue in my party recently ran right up to a Dire Troll, did some damage, but left themselves without a way to get away, out of reach or range... The Dire Troll, as Dire Trolls do, attacked the Rogue with ALL FIVE of its attacks, even though the Rogue was downed after the third one! Why? Because the Rogue had significantly hurt it, it's not an entirely stupid creature, and it's chaotic evil - when it kills something, it makes sure the enemy is dead! Now, this PC was dead dead, no death saves, no yo-yo healing, no whac-a-mole, just dead... We (the rest of the party) dispatched of the trolls a few rounds later, and my Cleric took out her 300gp Diamond, ran over, and went to cast Revivify, but an NPC that was with us stopped me and said, "It won't work, his lungs are punctured, there is blood pooling in them, the wounds are so severe that bringing him back now will cause him to die again instantly" - side note, I was NOT happy with this, we're only Level 6, I'd gotten this Diamond back at Level 2 for THIS EXACT KIND OF SCENARIO, I'm a Cleric in a party that can almost all heal themselves in some way, this was my ONE job, and I couldn't do it, but, it's for the story - the point is, yes, individual PC death CAN happen, if the DM chooses for it to happen, but when they do, it best serve the story in some way...
Anyways, point I'm making is - I also disagree with the new rule, my monsters will crit as I see fit, I just don't think it serves any purpose to crit low level PCs with low level monsters...
Unless that was a setup between your DM and the rogue player to bring in a new character your DM is a dick. Just IMO. Nothing to do with the spirit of your response. I agree, if it doesn't work for you don't use it lol but goddamn if he pulled that shit on me being that ready I'd leave the table.
I love the inclusion of sign language as a common language.
Me too!
To the issue of inspiration, I would love to see Nat 1s given inspiration instead of Nat 20s. Natural 1s can be leadening. They can make a slow session slower or make a desperate situation unbearable. Giving inspiration would mean that players needn't despair; they have learned from their failures and will do better at something else.
Oh my gosh! This! This is brilliant! love that idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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.
This very much distills my specific and philosophical objections to some of the new rules. I haven't been able to put my finger on it previously, but this articulates it nicely.
Everything is geared at making player experiences more "fun" while basically ignoring what's fun for the DM. The DM is essentially treated as a dice/XP/silly voice machine, not an actual player at the table (albeit one with final rules authority and more responsibility than everyone else). DMing can be a LOT of work (and so much of the time, most of your prep is invisible to the players or not even used) and it's frustrating that as 5E (and now ONED&D) has expanded and grown, it's done so in ways that for the most part treat DMs as necessary evils or unimportant in terms of the fun being had.
Exactly. Well put. Both of you. I agree that 5E is geared more towards player fun. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with that, but it sometimes (often?) comes at the cost of making the game about the PCs rather than about the story itself.
Before I start a campaign, I tell my players that their PC may die at any one point and that this is part of the Dnd experience and that we can always turn that, if it happens, into a good, fun story for everyone. I tell them, and remind them often, that I am not playing against them, but that I'm playing how the world, and the monsters/villains in it, react to their actions as objectively as possible. I make them understand that I play too and that I want to have fun too. And that my ultimate fun is when, whatever happens in the game, we all tell a cool story with what the game gives us.
In our family home campaign, my youngest son lost his beloved 3rd level goliath barbarian following a fall from a cliff followed by drowning in a raging underground river. Sure he was upset, he even cried for a few seconds. Did I feel bad about it ? A bit, not much. But I had fun in the realization that I had provided an adequate and challenging environment for my players. I had warned them that these things could happen. My son then realized that this tragic death would be remembered for a long time, outside the game, but also in-game by his fellow adventurers. We even started thinking that the demise of his barbarian could be the start of another character. Maybe the corpse of his barbarian was washed away by the river in a magical swamp downstream where he rose as a reborn barbarian/druid and does not remember his past. That would be the start of something cool, for sure.
To the issue of inspiration, I would love to see Nat 1s given inspiration instead of Nat 20s. Natural 1s can be leadening. They can make a slow session slower or make a desperate situation unbearable. Giving inspiration would mean that players needn't despair; they have learned from their failures and will do better at something else.
someone else already said this was a good idea and I concur! I like where your head is at :)
I love the inclusion of sign language as a common language.
Me too!
To the issue of inspiration, I would love to see Nat 1s given inspiration instead of Nat 20s. Natural 1s can be leadening. They can make a slow session slower or make a desperate situation unbearable. Giving inspiration would mean that players needn't despair; they have learned from their failures and will do better at something else.
Oh my gosh! This! This is brilliant! love that idea.
Better yet, a character can get Inspiration from both a Nat 1 and a Nat 20, just for different narrative reasons.
As for Common Sign Language, I feel like it needs a new single-word name, but conceptually it's great.
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.
You seem angry... Might I suggest a Xanax or a Valium, something to take the edge off?
If you're the type of DM who apparently ONLY has fun when you're stomping your players in combat, then good for you! If that's how you get your enjoyment, I'm happy for you - can't say I'm happy for your players, sounds like you've got one heck of an ego!
I never once said a DM can't be happy when they roll well - not one single time did I say that or even imply it... I also never said that a DM shouldn't be able to crit ever - in fact, I've pretty much said the opposite, I've said under no circumstances will I be playing by the new rule that crits are for PCs only... I also never said a DM should feel bad if a PC dies, nor should they feel bad if the entire party loses and fails their mission - both of these things can serve the story very well...
You seem to think that "not allowing low level monsters to crit against low level PCs" means "all DMs are evil and players should be the only ones to have fun" - some leap in logic there pal! Of course DMs are players too, and of course DMs should also have fun! But having a "me vs them" attitude to combat encounters is, objectively, the wrong way to think about it (and it seems like it's the only way you think about it) - YOU are not THEIR enemy - you're their narrator, their NPCs, their quest givers, their storyteller, their guide, and yes, you control their enemies. But controlling their enemies doesn't mean "if they win, I lose", it never has! Controlling their enemies means you think up interesting encounters that would be fun to play - you've hundreds, if not thousands, of unique monsters to add to combat encounters offering a huge variety of abilities to throw at your party. You decide the enemies HP, AC, Stats, To Hit, Damage, etc. If you're running a boss fight and the first round doesn't go too well, you can literally do ANYTHING you want to rectify that - add more HP to the boss, they'll never know - add more minions to protect the boss - add a glyph on the ground that the boss steps on and it automagically casts a 9th Level Cure Wounds - add an escape route for the boss - add whatever the hell you want to the combat if you want to prolong it so that it's more fun FOR EVERYONE!
If you're letting your party stomp your Big Bad in two rounds without having a half dozen or more contingency plans in place, then you need to get better at encounter prep! If your fun is dependent on you hitting the party, then give the enemies better ways to hit them - higher To Hit modifiers and, maybe, lower damage. If your fun is dependent on the party not hitting the enemies, then give them better AC (but be careful, if you not hitting is unfun for you, then them not hitting is not fun for them)...
And, once again, I'm not sure how "crit-killing a low level PC should not be the goal, so maybe take away the possibility that can even happen", somehow, in your logic, equates to "DMs aren't here to have fun, we're here to make sure everyone else has fun" - that's preposterous, no one even suggested such a thing...
I'm pissed off at people like you who call us other DMs sadistic evil bastards just because we got excited we crit like any other player would.
Yes, you DID imply that DMs shouldn't be happy when they roll well. Why else would you call us sadistic player killers because we say that taking away crits from DMs is unfun for the DM?
If you're the type of DM who apparently ONLY has fun when you're stomping your players in combat, then good for you! If that's how you get your enjoyment, I'm happy for you - can't say I'm happy for your players, sounds like you've got one heck of an ego!
🙄 i see, so anyone you insult just has an ego when they get mad you? alright. Bye.
I never once called any other DM a "sadistic evil bastard" for getting excited about a crit, I said "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"" - The difference is that on one hand getting excited about a crit is perfectly fine, everyone gets excited about a crit, but on the other hand, you come across as though your fun literally depends on that and nothing else... You literally listed out things that make you feel bad, with the only thing that makes you feel good being "rolling well against my players"... And, re-reading your last post, I'm getting the sense that you're projecting, because maybe your players have felt the same way, and told you as much, which is why you now roll in the open? Listen, if THEY called you evil for laughing at a crit, that's between you and them - I didn't call you evil... If they called you out as trying to kill them on purpose for rolling well and making a mistake in encounter balance, that's between you and them - I didn't call you out... I never said you can't run deadly games (maybe you just need to find players who enjoy those?), and I never forced you to roll in public because I don't trust your rolls (I don't even know you, and I'd never make a DM roll in public)... If I happened to strike a nerve by saying "those who only get enjoyment out of potentially killing PCs" because of some real life stuff going on with your gaming group, then I'm sorry, that was not my intention...
Once again though, I didn't say "DMs shouldn't be happy when they roll well", I said that's not the ONLY thing that should make them happy. And I didn't say "DMs should never crit", because I completely disagree with that new rule, and I only said that it makes sense in lower levels, with low level monsters, so that the PCs can maybe survive long enough to get the story going!
I never insulted anyone (at least not until the point where I said you apparently have one heck of an ego, but you're the one who came in here all hostile about a discussion on crits)... FWIW, I'm sorry, I'm sure you don't have an ego... And if your current group are forcing you to roll in public because they don't trust you and think you just want to kill their PCs, then I hope you find a new group who loves deadly campaigns where death can happen at any moment!
Unless that was a setup between your DM and the rogue player to bring in a new character your DM is a dick. Just IMO. Nothing to do with the spirit of your response. I agree, if it doesn't work for you don't use it lol but goddamn if he pulled that shit on me being that ready I'd leave the table.
The Rogue played a new character (Druid) for a few sessions, but now he's back, in a new body (Reincarnate) - had to find an NPC that could bring him back as a side quest, not a big deal... I assume they had discussed a race change for his Half-Elf, which is why it specifically had to be Reincarnate (because of the new body)
I would note that a lot of the reason why crits on low level PCs are so dangerous is because low level monsters generally have low numbers of dice and don't have multiattack, which means a crit is a huge spike. Lets say you have one monster that does 2d8+2, and the other multiattacks for 1d6+2 twice. They're both the same average of 11 dpr, but the first monster has around a 2.7% chance of doing 20+ (which will instantly kill a lot of level 1s), the second monster has around a 0.3% chance.
Better yet, a character can get Inspiration from both a Nat 1 and a Nat 20, just for different narrative reasons.
As for Common Sign Language, I feel like it needs a new single-word name, but conceptually it's great.
I wouldn't mind Nat 1 and Nat 20 inspiration, but if we can only have one, and Nat 20s remain autosuccesses (which is a whole can of worms I do not care about), I would prefer to have nat 1 inspiration.
I agree, if they could come up with a word that is more clear than Common Sign Language, that would be great. But as we refer to different sign languages in the real world as [Language] Sign Language, CSL gets the idea across in a very clear and unambiguous way. If acronyms are too anachronistic for you, I guess Common Signs or Hand Cant could work, but I don't mind the suspension of disbelief for more inclusion. On that note, I hope this inclusion also means we get to see language addressing wheelchair users and blind characters.
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
Better yet, a character can get Inspiration from both a Nat 1 and a Nat 20, just for different narrative reasons.
As for Common Sign Language, I feel like it needs a new single-word name, but conceptually it's great.
I wouldn't mind Nat 1 and Nat 20 inspiration, but if we can only have one, and Nat 20s remain autosuccesses (which is a whole can of worms I do not care about), I would prefer to have nat 1 inspiration.
I agree, if they could come up with a word that is more clear than Common Sign Language, that would be great. But as we refer to different sign languages in the real world as [Language] Sign Language, CSL gets the idea across in a very clear and unambiguous way. If acronyms are too anachronistic for you, I guess Common Signs or Hand Cant could work, but I don't mind the suspension of disbelief for more inclusion. On that note, I hope this inclusion also means we get to see language addressing wheelchair users and blind characters.
I kinda like the notion of "Surface Sign" or "Oversign", being derived from drow sign by surface-dwellers who interacted with them extensively (either voluntarily or not), which could mean adding "Drow Sign" or "Undersign" to the list as an alternative sign language.
I would enjoy just the ability to have open "Custom" language slots. It's irritating for me as a DM when I end of with four players who get two or three languages but the area they start in and or adventure in has few languages they would feasibly know or have languages that aren't expressed in the options provided.
Unless that was a setup between your DM and the rogue player to bring in a new character your DM is a dick. Just IMO. Nothing to do with the spirit of your response. I agree, if it doesn't work for you don't use it lol but goddamn if he pulled that shit on me being that ready I'd leave the table.
The Rogue played a new character (Druid) for a few sessions, but now he's back, in a new body (Reincarnate) - had to find an NPC that could bring him back as a side quest, not a big deal... I assume they had discussed a race change for his Half-Elf, which is why it specifically had to be Reincarnate (because of the new body)
That's fair then. Glad it worked out. But man I would've really hated to be that Cleric.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am pleasantly surprised by how much I like this playtest.
I think the race options are really good. I like the half race rules, the dwarf and halfling consolidation, and while WotC and I will not agree about how to rethink the drow, I like the elven lineages.The gnome lineages table has got to go though. We can't have a table spanning two pages like that. It makes my skin crawl.
I don't love the ardling, but I don't play a lot of celestials or beastfolk so the ardling isn't really meant for me. Yurei1453 made a really good point, I believe much earlier in this thread, about the ardling being a way to represent celestial origins and have universal coverage for anthropomorphic characters built right into the PHB. It's not for me, but I see why it should be included.
I like the background rules, I've always preferred to cobble my own background together. Even still, I love the diversity of the sample backgrounds.
I love the inclusion of sign language as a common language. I've played a mute and deaf character and it would have been much harder if there wasn't a rogue in the party. Speaking of languages, I really wish linguist was a 1st level feat. Some people like getting proficiency in as many skills as possible, I love collecting as many languages as possible as early as possible.
I love the phrase "d20 test". Sure, it's a little clumsy, test isn't my favorite word, but it eliminates the phrase "ability check, attack roll, or saving throw" which is a win for homebrewers and designers. I can't wait to use it in my homebrew.
To the issue of inspiration, I would love to see Nat 1s given inspiration instead of Nat 20s. Natural 1s can be leadening. They can make a slow session slower or make a desperate situation unbearable. Giving inspiration would mean that players needn't despair; they have learned from their failures and will do better at something else.
To the hot topic of critical hits. I would like to see spells, sneak attack, and smites retain their current effects on a Nat 20. Monsters... well... I use monster critical hits in my game and I have killed a Tier 1 PC with one (yes, it was their first time playing, I gave the player as much agency in how long they stayed dead as I could, they were a good sport about it, and they were resurrected). As an experienced DM, I know I can take the risk of low level PC death. Do I think every table should take that risk? ...No. PC deaths are messy and without access to resurrection magic, it can be pretty upsetting. For a new DM with new players, monsters without crits seems perfectly fine. I would encourage more experienced players and DMs to take on the risk of death via the hands of a nat 20 but I would not force it upon them.
I like the spell lists, but until we see how classes work, getting worked up about them seems pointless. I notice that eldritch blast is not on any of the spell lists yet hex, hellish rebuke, and other classic warlock spells are on the Arcane spell list. I wonder what this means for the iconic spell. Is it becoming a class feature?
I'm curious about what others think about the use of proper nouns. Action, Bonus Action, Tool Proficiency, Weapon, Spell, everything is getting capitalized. I'm guessing that the reasoning behind this is to differentiate mechanics from flavor text in very clear terms. But it gives the mechanics this very stilted style. How does it read to you? Is this a change you care about or am I engaging in pedantry?
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
This very much distills my specific and philosophical objections to some of the new rules. I haven't been able to put my finger on it previously, but this articulates it nicely.
Everything is geared at making player experiences more "fun" while basically ignoring what's fun for the DM. The DM is essentially treated as a dice/XP/silly voice machine, not an actual player at the table (albeit one with final rules authority and more responsibility than everyone else). DMing can be a LOT of work (and so much of the time, most of your prep is invisible to the players or not even used) and it's frustrating that as 5E (and now ONED&D) has expanded and grown, it's done so in ways that for the most part treat DMs as necessary evils or unimportant in terms of the fun being had.
Reminder: this is the Character Origins document for the One D&D Player's Handbook playtest. There's a reason the current document up for testing feels player-centric.
Please do not contact or message me.
Is this just for playtest with the pdf or are there dndbeyond digital options to test them?
DDB is, sadly, sticking to its guns on not building/implementing UA content. The source is available to view here and DDB hosts discussions for it, and obviously anything that can be homebrewed (or simply ruled, like the Inspiration and critical changes) are welcome testing options for people, but DDB will not be implementing the new chargen method or the newly reduxed feats. It's too much of a lift for the current DDB team to stay on top of UA, especially when we're looking at a cycle of rapid content releases that heavily muck with the core structure of the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
1: With your example what are the current stats for Half-Goblin/Dwarf? Do you homebrew it? What is stopping you from doing that with the new rule?
2: Your example is not how the game works RAW. Social interactions have rules and a nat 20 isn't mind control. Equally, DMs should only be calling for a roll or rolling if there is a need. Not every roll. If it is impossible to change the PCs minds the DM shouldn't be rolling. Vice-versa applies as well.
3: I agree.
4: I've been running feats at level 1 for forever now, I like it.
5: Bounded Accuracy. Same reason races that get +2 to a specific and +1 to choice couldn't choose the same stat.
I do agree with the fact I like the move towards "do it your way" rulebooking, but I know a lot of people who need clear defined rules for their games so I can understand the upset.
I think no spell crits is a long time needed. Spells already have greater range than a lot of attacks, better damage, additional effects, etc. There is no need to double already greater damage. Same with smites and sneak attacks.
Again, I'm specifically talking about removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, nothing more... The new rule that monsters can't crit at all is ridiculous and I'll NOT be using it, but there is value in removing crits from low level monsters against low level PCs, if only so they can be sure to survive a few levels and get into the main part of the story...
Individual PC death is only as unlikely, or likely, as the DM makes it (granted, it's helped a little by PCs making stupid decisions)... The Rogue in my party recently ran right up to a Dire Troll, did some damage, but left themselves without a way to get away, out of reach or range... The Dire Troll, as Dire Trolls do, attacked the Rogue with ALL FIVE of its attacks, even though the Rogue was downed after the third one! Why? Because the Rogue had significantly hurt it, it's not an entirely stupid creature, and it's chaotic evil - when it kills something, it makes sure the enemy is dead! Now, this PC was dead dead, no death saves, no yo-yo healing, no whac-a-mole, just dead... We (the rest of the party) dispatched of the trolls a few rounds later, and my Cleric took out her 300gp Diamond, ran over, and went to cast Revivify, but an NPC that was with us stopped me and said, "It won't work, his lungs are punctured, there is blood pooling in them, the wounds are so severe that bringing him back now will cause him to die again instantly" - side note, I was NOT happy with this, we're only Level 6, I'd gotten this Diamond back at Level 2 for THIS EXACT KIND OF SCENARIO, I'm a Cleric in a party that can almost all heal themselves in some way, this was my ONE job, and I couldn't do it, but, it's for the story - the point is, yes, individual PC death CAN happen, if the DM chooses for it to happen, but when they do, it best serve the story in some way...
Anyways, point I'm making is - I also disagree with the new rule, my monsters will crit as I see fit, I just don't think it serves any purpose to crit low level PCs with low level monsters...
Unless that was a setup between your DM and the rogue player to bring in a new character your DM is a dick. Just IMO. Nothing to do with the spirit of your response. I agree, if it doesn't work for you don't use it lol but goddamn if he pulled that shit on me being that ready I'd leave the table.
Me too!
Oh my gosh! This! This is brilliant! love that idea.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Exactly. Well put. Both of you. I agree that 5E is geared more towards player fun. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with that, but it sometimes (often?) comes at the cost of making the game about the PCs rather than about the story itself.
Before I start a campaign, I tell my players that their PC may die at any one point and that this is part of the Dnd experience and that we can always turn that, if it happens, into a good, fun story for everyone. I tell them, and remind them often, that I am not playing against them, but that I'm playing how the world, and the monsters/villains in it, react to their actions as objectively as possible. I make them understand that I play too and that I want to have fun too. And that my ultimate fun is when, whatever happens in the game, we all tell a cool story with what the game gives us.
In our family home campaign, my youngest son lost his beloved 3rd level goliath barbarian following a fall from a cliff followed by drowning in a raging underground river. Sure he was upset, he even cried for a few seconds. Did I feel bad about it ? A bit, not much. But I had fun in the realization that I had provided an adequate and challenging environment for my players. I had warned them that these things could happen. My son then realized that this tragic death would be remembered for a long time, outside the game, but also in-game by his fellow adventurers. We even started thinking that the demise of his barbarian could be the start of another character. Maybe the corpse of his barbarian was washed away by the river in a magical swamp downstream where he rose as a reborn barbarian/druid and does not remember his past. That would be the start of something cool, for sure.
Just fun. For everyone
someone else already said this was a good idea and I concur! I like where your head is at :)
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Better yet, a character can get Inspiration from both a Nat 1 and a Nat 20, just for different narrative reasons.
As for Common Sign Language, I feel like it needs a new single-word name, but conceptually it's great.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
I never once called any other DM a "sadistic evil bastard" for getting excited about a crit, I said "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"" - The difference is that on one hand getting excited about a crit is perfectly fine, everyone gets excited about a crit, but on the other hand, you come across as though your fun literally depends on that and nothing else... You literally listed out things that make you feel bad, with the only thing that makes you feel good being "rolling well against my players"... And, re-reading your last post, I'm getting the sense that you're projecting, because maybe your players have felt the same way, and told you as much, which is why you now roll in the open? Listen, if THEY called you evil for laughing at a crit, that's between you and them - I didn't call you evil... If they called you out as trying to kill them on purpose for rolling well and making a mistake in encounter balance, that's between you and them - I didn't call you out... I never said you can't run deadly games (maybe you just need to find players who enjoy those?), and I never forced you to roll in public because I don't trust your rolls (I don't even know you, and I'd never make a DM roll in public)... If I happened to strike a nerve by saying "those who only get enjoyment out of potentially killing PCs" because of some real life stuff going on with your gaming group, then I'm sorry, that was not my intention...
Once again though, I didn't say "DMs shouldn't be happy when they roll well", I said that's not the ONLY thing that should make them happy. And I didn't say "DMs should never crit", because I completely disagree with that new rule, and I only said that it makes sense in lower levels, with low level monsters, so that the PCs can maybe survive long enough to get the story going!
I never insulted anyone (at least not until the point where I said you apparently have one heck of an ego, but you're the one who came in here all hostile about a discussion on crits)... FWIW, I'm sorry, I'm sure you don't have an ego... And if your current group are forcing you to roll in public because they don't trust you and think you just want to kill their PCs, then I hope you find a new group who loves deadly campaigns where death can happen at any moment!
The Rogue played a new character (Druid) for a few sessions, but now he's back, in a new body (Reincarnate) - had to find an NPC that could bring him back as a side quest, not a big deal... I assume they had discussed a race change for his Half-Elf, which is why it specifically had to be Reincarnate (because of the new body)
I would note that a lot of the reason why crits on low level PCs are so dangerous is because low level monsters generally have low numbers of dice and don't have multiattack, which means a crit is a huge spike. Lets say you have one monster that does 2d8+2, and the other multiattacks for 1d6+2 twice. They're both the same average of 11 dpr, but the first monster has around a 2.7% chance of doing 20+ (which will instantly kill a lot of level 1s), the second monster has around a 0.3% chance.
I wouldn't mind Nat 1 and Nat 20 inspiration, but if we can only have one, and Nat 20s remain autosuccesses (which is a whole can of worms I do not care about), I would prefer to have nat 1 inspiration.
I agree, if they could come up with a word that is more clear than Common Sign Language, that would be great. But as we refer to different sign languages in the real world as [Language] Sign Language, CSL gets the idea across in a very clear and unambiguous way. If acronyms are too anachronistic for you, I guess Common Signs or Hand Cant could work, but I don't mind the suspension of disbelief for more inclusion. On that note, I hope this inclusion also means we get to see language addressing wheelchair users and blind characters.
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
I kinda like the notion of "Surface Sign" or "Oversign", being derived from drow sign by surface-dwellers who interacted with them extensively (either voluntarily or not), which could mean adding "Drow Sign" or "Undersign" to the list as an alternative sign language.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
Side thought... would sign language be considered a verbal or a somatic component when casting a spell?
Fair Winds and Following Seas
I would enjoy just the ability to have open "Custom" language slots. It's irritating for me as a DM when I end of with four players who get two or three languages but the area they start in and or adventure in has few languages they would feasibly know or have languages that aren't expressed in the options provided.
That's fair then. Glad it worked out. But man I would've really hated to be that Cleric.