Any thoughts to the natural 20 for an ability check automatically means success? So my halfling with an -8- strength and -0- athletics has a one in 20 chance of pushing a 1-ton boulder?
If your DM allows this to happen, that's on them for even allowing the possibility. Just because the player says they want to try and do something monumentally stupid doesn't mean the DM is obliged to let them have a chance at succeeding if it doesn't make any sense.
The rules also say that the highest DC that's a valid roll is 30. If something is above 30, then you don't roll. So, you can just say that it's not a rollable event and if they can't roll, they can't get a nat20 and automatically succeed.
In the case of a ton boulder, if I let them roll for it and they got a nat20, I'd just describe them getting really lucky - it was sat slightly elevated and their push was what it needed to go and moves under its own momentum. I hope nothing precious is in its way, now.
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.
So, at 1st level, I get +2 for being proficient with the tools, and I get a +2 for being proficient in the ability, AND I get advantage.
That seems excessive.
Not how it works. If you're proficient in the Tool, you get the bonus for that. If you are also proficient in an applicable skill, you get Advantage, not another bonus to the roll.
Can we all agree that the term “D20 Test” is awful and needs to go?
Not at all. I rather like the shorthand, it's much easier to convey than "an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw". Being ablel to simply say "a d20 test" and indicate all three primary roll types is a welcome addition to the game's lexicon.
Also yes - I'm not a fan of the caving-to-pressure in this specific case of natural 1s and 20s being automatic failures or successes. Fortunately, a competent DM will not allow a player to even pick up their d20 for dumb action declarations like "I jump to the moon". A player gets to declare their action; the DM decides the outcome of that action, which may or may not include making a roll to see what happens. Some things are never going to happen, and some things are so easy and simple they don't merit wasting time with a roll. In my case I will not be utilizing this new rule, but fortunately that's okay. Heh, if half the playerbase can be idjits and get it wrong so consistently that Wizards changes the rule, the other half of the playerbase can continue being better than that and playing properly regardless of what the books say.
I have a few frick ton of big issues with the UA, but am open to corrections and people explaining why I am in fact a bumbling idiot who can not read. I dislike that crits do not apply to DM controlled enemies and allies, but only characters. That is my personal preference. I dislike that skill checks have auto fails and auto succeeds, because even with the 5-30 range a commoner who just got lucky should never be able to do significantly better than an unlucky wizard at deciphering a code. That was a bad example, but I don't want to think of a good one. I dislike that every single ****ing race under the sun and moon and solar system has spells now, because it feels like they decided that the best way to fix martial classes was to make them all spellcasters. I dislike the arcane, divine, primal spell lists, as it makes wizard significantly worse(wizards strengths include casting spells [which everyone can do now] and having a huge spell list[which all "arcane" casters have now]). I dislike level requirements for feats, as they invalidate the point of feats in my opinion, and makes them less exciting and unique. I dislike the arblings or whatever that totally not aasimar race is called, because it is simply a worse aasimar or an opposite tiefling. I dislike the lore changes regarding tieflings being from lower planes. I dislike that drow are so bad and non-unique now. I dislike the removal of dwarf subraces. Again, I hate that everyone and their mother and their mothers 70 closest friends get so many spells. I dislike inspiration being a game mechanic instead of a reward for awesome players roleplaying or being creative. I probably forgot something very important that I dislike, since I could not find one positive thing in the playtest. I think I will be sticking with "legacy" if this becomes official. Then again, I am an idiot on the internet, surrounded by smarter idiots. So what do you guys think?
Another thing I don’t get is the languages in the backgrounds. Being a guard means you speak dwarvish? Utter nonesense. It should just say your proficient in one language of your choice.
Another thing I don’t get is the languages in the backgrounds. Being a guard means you speak dwarvish? Utter nonesense. It should just say your proficient in one language of your choice.
I agree, backgrounds being janky is something I forgot to include in my post.
Any thoughts to the natural 20 for an ability check automatically means success? So my halfling with an -8- strength and -0- athletics has a one in 20 chance of pushing a 1-ton boulder?
Not a fan of that, there's always one player that wants to jump over a mountain and regardless of a DC of 5000, a nat 20 let's him do it?
I foresee a lot of Dm's ignoring that rule
That's definitely a hard no for me. At least for me it doesn't make sense mechanically or for role play purposes. Unlike critical hits, which are relative to the normal attack or spell damage, most skill checks being succeed or fail/yes or no type checks, it really doesn't make sense that a character with a medium-sized wizard with a -1 strength modifier has a chance of grappling a large opponent simply because they got lucky, regardless of the other creature's strength.
Another thing I don’t get is the languages in the backgrounds. Being a guard means you speak dwarvish? Utter nonesense. It should just say your proficient in one language of your choice.
It looks like the intent is that most people should just build their own background, but I think they'd be better off just giving one or two examples of the entire decision process.
It’s kind of hard to get a full picture of what we’re looking at here, without the class rules. I don’t know how much the class is going to change or add to the info we’ve received in this. I assume they will give additional equipment, as the backgrounds don’t provide weapons or armor of any kind. I feel like reading the class info is needed before I can really get a sense of the power level here.
Race sizing is interesting, and I am wondering about the logic. I like that humans, tieflings and ardlings can be small, but I wonder why dwarves, Dragonborn, orcs, and elves can’t be. It seems like dwarves especially should have that option.
Humans seem very powerful- the automatic inspiration after the LR and extra feat especially.
What is an ardling? Are they a newer version of aasimar? If so, I like the new flying mechanics. My characters/players will probably miss the ability to hover, but it feels more useable as a bonus action than an action.
Backgrounds offer a lot of room for roleplaying, but at the same time, min-maxing. However, limiting the feats by level could cut down on this. I wonder if we’ll see notorious feats like GWM, PAM, and Sharpshooter in the feats for higher levels, or not at all. I do miss some of the niche feats like linguist and mimic. I like how you can customize your character with feats, skills, and tools, but I would like some more roleplay focused feats.
Alert initiative swap is fun and useful. I like this version better than the PH version.
I appreciate the d20 test rule, as it removes some of the confusion surrounding the types of rolls, centralizing the mechanics in a way that would be helpful for new players.
Like others have said, the auto fail/success is interesting and potentially problematic. I feel like it could lead to conflict between players and DMs about whether or not a player should be allowed to roll at a specific point. DMs would really need to stress the ‘don’t roll unless I tell you to’ and the focus on narrating your action not ‘I make a perception check’. And sometimes it’s useful to make players roll when there’s nothing there- its a tool for adding suspense. This makes that a lot more risky to use- “But I rolled a twenty! Shouldn’t I find something? I automatically succeed, right?”
Crits being PC only is important, and I like the change. I just had an example in my campaign where a monster crit for forty points of damage turned an easy encounter into a TPK. Monster crits really impacts the swingyness (I don’t care that that’s not a word;)) of encounter balance.
Inspiration for a 20 feels like too much of an extra reward for something that’s already an immediate success on anything. 20s are cool enough already, especially with the new criting an ability check. I don’t think they need extra abilities. Then again, I do like that it brings inspiration back, since as a DM, I’m too busy remembering all the other rules and coming up with NPC responses to even think about inspiration.
The thing about interrupted long rests resulting in a short rest is a good rules clarification. I’m going to implement it now. It certainly helps with a few discussions I’ve seen on here, which shows that Wizards is paying attention to us. Yay!
Skill+Tool=Advantage? You’re not going to keep anything locked around those rogues. Or anyone, as Thieves Tools proficiency can be gotten from a background. I suppose this means that tool use falls under a particular skill now? That seems like a good clarification, I’ve had some confusion in my games trying to figure this out.
I’m not sure about the divine/primal/arcane stuff. It could reduce the individuality between the classes. However, we’ll have to wait and see what the classes have to say before drawing any definite conclusions.
How are the other races going to translate over, if at all? Slowed condition seems very anti-Tabaxi antics, which might be a good thing, but what traits will they even have under the new rules?
This seems like a promising start to 1DND, and I look forward to seeing what they come up with next.
Any thoughts to the natural 20 for an ability check automatically means success? So my halfling with an -8- strength and -0- athletics has a one in 20 chance of pushing a 1-ton boulder?
Not a fan of that, there's always one player that wants to jump over a mountain and regardless of a DC of 5000, a nat 20 let's him do it?
I foresee a lot of Dm's ignoring that rule
But remember, this is literally day 1 of a 18-ish month plauy test. So things being broken or unbalanced are kind of supposed to be there at this stage.
At my table, not all things call for a check. If there is no chance that a PC can succeed, then I do not call for a check. I simply narrate their humiliating failure. Similarly, if there is no chance of failure, I just let them skip the check.
Alright I just read it, and it's likely that my opinions will heavily change, but here's my initial thoughts:
The Bad:
Okay the "D20 test" sucks with auto-success and auto-fail on a 1. It should not always be pass/fail. Also "d20 test" as a name hurts my soul
I dislike the rerolling of 1's in feats. This is a minor gripe.
Edit: Minor gripe, but spell attacks can't crit? This isn't a solution to the martial/caster disparity at all this just is unfun. Crits are typically too rare to be reliable unless the opponent has a condition allowing autocrits. But then those conditions should be changed not making player abilities less fun.
Bards should have their own spell list and not follow the arcane spell list. Bards should have the options to be healing bois too!
Edit: Crits being PC only is a terrible thing in my opinion. The shock on my face when I DM and I roll a crit and have to announce it to the players can be painful in the moment, but creates some great experiences. I remember in a recent game when a PC was dueling a villain who was already more powerful than the PC, and the villain crit on both attacks for multiattack. Both opponents at low hp, and both inches from death. In the end the PC won (thankfully) but it was a great moment
The new races are awful in my opinion (worst one being the Aardling which I will rant about in a sec) and lack so much of the flavorful mechanics they used to have. They all seem to just be super watered down with many of them having absurdly similar mechanics compared to the more diverse 5e we have as of now. In addition some of the races aren't the best thematically They removed subraces from Dwarf and Halfing. You could argue they don't need them though as they're very similar, but they give a nice choice during character creation. Dragonborn breath weapon sucks again...
Casting Vicious Mockery on the Aardling: (My Aardling rant)
Alright if it wasn't obvious, I don't like the new playtest's Aardling. They're thematically awful in my opinion, even worse than the Giff in that regard. Is it supposed to be the Aasimar-like, or the beastfolk race?
As a DM I wouldn't like it when a player would ask me to play an Ardling and then when I'm thinking celestial, they're over there thinking Mongoose-man. And I wouldn't blame the player here, the race is way too open-ended to get a general vibe. Being a DM who DMs online games this isn't going to be fun to ask during the 1000 applications I get. What if I want a setting with specific kinds of beastfolk rather than something open-ended? Do I force reflavors of the Aardling or do I homebrew different races and ban the Aardling. What if I don't want beastfolk? I have to immediately ban/again force reflavors what will be a PHB race?
Also if it's supposed to be a beastfolk why isn't it a beast or fey? Additionally, I get it's supposed to be based off of celestials from religions and mythologies where celestials have animal-like features, but then why do the mechanics for the race feel like Aasimar 2.0 rather than something which gives that vibe?
The Good:
Okay I was super pessimistic when it comes to the revised backgrounds because of UA, but I actually think they're very well done! Like super well done! The new feats are also pretty cool! They could use some changes in some areas but are nice as of now! I mean I guess it's more simplistic and easy to access The Neutral:
I'm surprised they're not unifying long and short rests whatsoever (they somewhat are, you can only willingly take a long rest and a short rest happens if the rest is interrupted), as some classes in 5e being reliant on short rests while others long rests really can hurt game balance. Maybe they're changing the classes up on how they regain resources.
Edit: I was wrong the new spell lists are not replacing the old ones but rather being their own separate thing! I do still like my idea of even more specific kinds of spell lists which you will see below! What I put in italics is what I thought after thinking that the spell lists for different classes would be restricted to Divine, Arcane, and Primal! The new spell list system seems okay (with the exception of bard which should have it's own spell list). On one hand the new spell list really makes spellcasting classes feel a bit too similar, but it does allow for new flavors of characters. They do say that subclasses can access different spells from other spell lists. Honestly I'd like to see more spell list types for more specific categories of spells (this would require modifying the background feats slightly). Like rather than just the 3 pillars, we could have focus on more specific kinds of magic, like a category for curses/necromancy, one for healing, one for each of the 4 elements, etc. For what spell lists different classes get with this hypothetical idea of more specific spell lists, you could get to choose between different spell lists depending on the class, adding more customization.
Monk is gonna be absolutely broken when it comes to unarmed strikes allowing for grappling at the cost of no damage. Honestly though I don't see this as good or bad until we see revised monk in the playtest. Also new grapples seem absolutely busted (please correct me if they aren't actually busted). Grapples now get the benefit of knocking an opponent prone as well, which is insanely good. I'm unsure about the removal of Eldritch Blast as a spell, on one hand it becoming a class feature gives warlock a bit more of an identity, on the other, we miss out on some fun builds. Overall: As expected from a playtest this massive, it needs some revision. In addition, I'm worried that WOTC is "oversimplifying" things too much. (I swear if they remove verbal and somatic components for "simplicity") In addition, I'm worried a lot of fun builds and a ton of customization will be lost from oversimplification. I do think that D&D One has potential however, despite the 1st playtest being a bit in a negative direction in my opinion.
They're under the heading "Sample Backgrounds" - granted, there are too many samples, so it looks like a list of "official" ones, but the idea is to show "look, you can mix and match whatever the hell you want as a background"
I have a few frick ton of big issues with the UA, but am open to corrections and people explaining why I am in fact a bumbling idiot who can not read. 1.) I dislike that crits do not apply to DM controlled enemies and allies, but only characters. That is my personal preference. 2.) I dislike that skill checks have auto fails and auto succeeds, because even with the 5-30 range a commoner who just got lucky should never be able to do significantly better than an unlucky wizard at deciphering a code. That was a bad example, but I don't want to think of a good one. 3.) I dislike that every single ****ing race under the sun and moon and solar system has spells now, because it feels like they decided that the best way to fix martial classes was to make them all spellcasters. 4.) I dislike the arcane, divine, primal spell lists, as it makes wizard significantly worse(wizards strengths include casting spells [which everyone can do now] and having a huge spell list[which all "arcane" casters have now]). 5.) I dislike level requirements for feats, as they invalidate the point of feats in my opinion, and makes them less exciting and unique. 6.) I dislike the arblings or whatever that totally not aasimar race is called, because it is simply a worse aasimar or an opposite tiefling. 7.) I dislike the lore changes regarding tieflings being from lower planes. 8.) I dislike that drow are so bad and non-unique now. 9.) I dislike the removal of dwarf subraces. 10.) Again, I hate that everyone and their mother and their mothers 70 closest friends get so many spells. 11.) I dislike inspiration being a game mechanic instead of a reward for awesome players roleplaying or being creative. I probably forgot something very important that I dislike, since I could not find one positive thing in the playtest. I think I will be sticking with "legacy" if this becomes official. Then again, I am an idiot on the internet, surrounded by smarter idiots. So what do you guys think?
-Bob
Let's step through this.
1.) This is low-key one of the best changes in the entire document, and something my own table has been doing for quite a while. Random mooks haven't been able to crit for a while now, and y'know what? That's okay. In this, Crawford is absolutely right. Monster crits are far too punitive in tier 1 play, and in higher-tier play it's more fun for both the DM and the players to play around the Recharge mechanic on big-punch abilities. Monsters being able to crit on any random attack mostly just slowed combat down and created sometimes deeply unfun swings and spikes in encounter balance. People want tighter encounter balancing, like they constantly claim to? Disabling monsters' ability to randomly deal double damage for no discernible reason and without the slightest iota of control from either players or DM is an important step. This also reins in some of the "overbearing" power from things like Portent, Silvery Barbs, and other means of Crit Prevention and helps smoothen out power there, too. As a DM, I wholeheartedly approve of this change, especially since monsters not being able to crit does not mean monsters can't do awful things on a nat 20. See: the dullahan, possibly my personal favorite monster in current D&D.
2.) While the change is annoying, again: only bad/inexperienced DMs let people roll for every little thing no matter what. Players are entitled to declare any action they wish. They are not entitled to a roll for every action they declare. Despite what The Internet will tell you, a DM is not obligated to allow a player to roll, nor accept the results of a roll the player made without the DM calling for one. If yopur table does this, that's on the table, not the ruleset.
3.) the Origins playtest document presents nine species: humans, ardlings, dragonborn, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, and tieflings. Of those nine species, four have innate spellcasting: ardlings, elves, gnomes, and tieflings. Three of these species already had innate spellcasting in the 2014 PHB, and one of them didn't exist. Gnomes have very light spellcasting abilities, tieflings have the same level of spellcasting they always had with the addition of a fighty cantrip many will never use, elves have more uniform spellcasting as part of the Great De-Elfening, and ardlings did not previously exist. I dispute that "every race under the sun" has spells now. if you had spells before, you still do. if you did not have spells before, you don't, with the sole exception of rock gnomes and wood elves. Two subspecies getting minor innate spellcasting as part of the adjustment process is not a sky-is-falling event.
4.) You're misunderstanding the point of these spell lists. Every spellcasting class will still have its own personal spell list. This is a secondary system, distinct and separate from class-based spell lists, meant to allow non-class things like Magic Initiate to work better and to give the devs more design space to play with in the future. These spell lists are not replacing class lists, and that was never the intent nor on the table.
5.) All feats are not created equal. There is no game in which Chef is equal in power to Polearm Master. Feats being a uniform grab bag just means that only the top half-dozen or so Best Usefulest Feats get picked because there's no reason not to. Putting feats in tiers and restricting access to the more potent tiers means Wizards can be more generous with the lower-tiered feats, the actually interesting stuff that speaks to your character and gives you fun and memorable side abilities. Without some means of saying "You can pick Chef but not Polearm Master", they cannot do that. I wholeheartedly endorse this system as it gives both the WotC dev team and also homebrew rules-rebakers like us more levers to play with. I can make some really fuggin' juiced-ass homebrew feats and stick them with a 12th-level requirement, or I can make fun little quirky feats nobody would take seriously and make them level-less. This is a benefit, not a drawback.
6.) Ardlings are the answer to "how do I play a(n) [X] person in D&D?" with [X] being any animal of choice. if you want to be a dog person, a rhino person, a scarab person, a goldfish person, a cockatiel person, or a whatever-else-you-like person, now you can play an ardling and do it up. Also, aasimar were never a core PHB species; they live in M3 and they never lived in the PHB before this, so why reprint them there now? We get these new guys that give celestial-liking folks and furry-liking folks both a new set of options and aasimar are still there. Who's losing?
7.) No lore in any book has been as widely disregarded as the origins-of-tieflings lore. Everybody's tiffle has their own special origin, nobody has ever played with the "descended from a pact-sworn of Asmodeus" thing. And frankly, even if they did, this new lore doesn't really count as "new lore". It says you have an ancestral connection somewhere in the Lower Planes, which is broad enough to encompass all previous tiffle origin lore. Again, there's no actual change here. Tieflings are still touched by fiendish power; there's just more varieties of fiend out there to be touched by now.
8.) I'm actively playing a drow. You know what I lose, if/when I switch Mistletoe over to this new pattern? Three weapon proficiencies my paladin class already offered me, and Sunlight Sensitivity. Nothing else changes. I still get superior darkvision, I still get the same three inherent spells, I still get Trance, I still get free Perception proficiency, I still get free go-away-bard charm resistance. Sunlight Sensitivity is the only significant change, and the overwhelming majority of people will consider it a positive one. Personally? I fully intend to continue playing Mistletoe as being uncomfortable and disoriented in strong sunlight and I may very well still roll with disadvantage even though I technically don't have to now. This mechanical change is a nothingburger and it doesn't invalidate any previous lore people liked about drow. regardless of whether that lore is good or bad.
9.) Why? What do the subspecies offer that the unified species on offer does not? What is being lost? The mountain dwarf's extra skill point? Boo hoo. Dwarves gain extra hardiness and resilience through the mechanically fantastic Dwarven Toughness trait; between Dwarven Toughness and Dwarven Resilience, a dwarf is significantly hardier than anyone else with an equivalent Con score. They get two bonus tool proficiencies and freaking Tremorsense. The new dwarf is stacked, and easily takes the place of both Mountain and Hill varieties. I don't see where there's anything worth hating here beyond TCINIS.
10.) You have yet to provide a reason for this hatred, unfounded as it is. And since I already addressed it, moving on.
11.) Inspiration can still be awarded by a DM for someone doing something fun. Says so right in the document. You just also get it mechanically, on a d20 roll of 20. This is because tables do one of two things with Inspiration, almost universally. A.) they hoard it and never use it because it's a rare and valuable resource, and thus there's no point in giving it in the first place, or B.) they completely forget it exists. I think I've seen it used at my table maybe three total times in the 4+ years I've been playing, and I've seen it used exactly ONE TIME during my watching of various live plays - namely, in Exandria Unlimited when Aabria awarded it generously and people actually used it as a result. This is not a change to deprive the DM of a cool Scooby Snack they can give the player. THis is a change to get players to remember their f@#$ing Scooby Snacks and USE THEM, so the DM can give them more Scooby Snacks.
I agree that there are a lot of things that it's hard to tell how they'll work without seeing the changes to the classes as well. Also, I haven't watched the video, just read the PDF, so if there's something that was gone over in it, I've missed it.
Things I'm not a fan of:
Spell attacks can't crit.
Lucky now levels with your PB! I don't mind, but I feel like there's going to be an increase in DMs not allowing Lucky.
I'm really hoping that they're just UA'ing some of the feats, and not nixing a bunch of feats. Presumably the ones they haven't put out yet will come out with the class UA.
My cleric can't cast Mending any more? There are a few other spells that I don't see listed anywhere at all, either.
Things I'm not sure about:
You can't speak while incapacitated, but what about telepathy?
Changes to inspiration. I don't really want the 'you start with Inspo' human trait, and I think it doesn't work well with the rest of what they're doing to try and get people to use it more.
I like that backgrounds now come with a feat, but I don't like that the ribbon features appear to have been done away with. I agree that both would be a lot, but I need my Outlander and Urban Bounty Hunter backgrounds and their special features. Also, the lack of tables associated with the backgrounds make these feel even more bare bones than they already are.
More of the feats are repeatable! That's interesting, but the fact that someone can now take Magic Initiate 3 times is something I think probably won't make it through UA. Not sure about Skilled, either.
I don't mind the changes to Tieflings' background, but I'm sure a lot of people are, so it'll be interesting to see the final outcome.
Things I do like:
They're finally including the 'losing concentration' in the definition of Incapacitated. It's been a minor but repeating irritation that DDB won't list it in the condition tag, because it's not listed in the appendix glossary, but only in the discussion of spellcasting. Happy that this will fix that.
While I'll miss having Half-Elves and Half-Orcs as fully defined races, I'm glad we're getting concrete rules for how to make PC with two different races.
11.) Inspiration can still be awarded by a DM for someone doing something fun. Says so right in the document. You just also get it mechanically, on a d20 roll of 20. This is because tables do one of two things with Inspiration, almost universally. A.) they hoard it and never use it because it's a rare and valuable resource, and thus there's no point in giving it in the first place, or B.) they completely forget it exists.
Or both. The core problems with the way it works in 5e is
The DM has a lot of things to keep track of already. If you have four PCs, that's twenty traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Most DMs are just going to forget.
Advantage just isn't all that special. It's nice to have, but it's not so special that it's worth spending a lot of mental effort keeping track of this kind of rare resource.
I have a few frick ton of big issues with the UA, but am open to corrections and people explaining why I am in fact a bumbling idiot who can not read. 1.) I dislike that crits do not apply to DM controlled enemies and allies, but only characters. That is my personal preference. 2.) I dislike that skill checks have auto fails and auto succeeds, because even with the 5-30 range a commoner who just got lucky should never be able to do significantly better than an unlucky wizard at deciphering a code. That was a bad example, but I don't want to think of a good one. 3.) I dislike that every single ****ing race under the sun and moon and solar system has spells now, because it feels like they decided that the best way to fix martial classes was to make them all spellcasters. 4.) I dislike the arcane, divine, primal spell lists, as it makes wizard significantly worse(wizards strengths include casting spells [which everyone can do now] and having a huge spell list[which all "arcane" casters have now]). 5.) I dislike level requirements for feats, as they invalidate the point of feats in my opinion, and makes them less exciting and unique. 6.) I dislike the arblings or whatever that totally not aasimar race is called, because it is simply a worse aasimar or an opposite tiefling. 7.) I dislike the lore changes regarding tieflings being from lower planes. 8.) I dislike that drow are so bad and non-unique now. 9.) I dislike the removal of dwarf subraces. 10.) Again, I hate that everyone and their mother and their mothers 70 closest friends get so many spells. 11.) I dislike inspiration being a game mechanic instead of a reward for awesome players roleplaying or being creative. I probably forgot something very important that I dislike, since I could not find one positive thing in the playtest. I think I will be sticking with "legacy" if this becomes official. Then again, I am an idiot on the internet, surrounded by smarter idiots. So what do you guys think?
-Bob
Let's step through this.
1.) This is low-key one of the best changes in the entire document, and something my own table has been doing for quite a while. Random mooks haven't been able to crit for a while now, and y'know what? That's okay. In this, Crawford is absolutely right. Monster crits are far too punitive in tier 1 play, and in higher-tier play it's more fun for both the DM and the players to play around the Recharge mechanic on big-punch abilities. Monsters being able to crit on any random attack mostly just slowed combat down and created sometimes deeply unfun swings and spikes in encounter balance. People want tighter encounter balancing, like they constantly claim to? Disabling monsters' ability to randomly deal double damage for no discernible reason and without the slightest iota of control from either players or DM is an important step. This also reins in some of the "overbearing" power from things like Portent, Silvery Barbs, and other means of Crit Prevention and helps smoothen out power there, too. As a DM, I wholeheartedly approve of this change, especially since monsters not being able to crit does not mean monsters can't do awful things on a nat 20. See: the dullahan, possibly my personal favorite monster in current D&D.
I just want to address this (more of a addition or a "this is how I do it" thing)... As a new DM, and a relative new player (only been playing weekly sessions for about 18 months), one of the very first things I noticed was that a crit from a Goblin could end a players Level 1 character... That's no fun, for anyone! From the moment I started DMing, I start Homebrewing variants of "low tier" monsters and NPC enemies with a trait I call "Unexceptional", and here it is:
Unexceptional. A commoner cannot get a critical hit on an enemy.
That's it... Simple, and this goes on ALL the "low tier" enemies... When my players level up and start to be able to take a hit or two, then I'll introduce SOME monsters that can crit. But, until then, why the hell would I let a low tier monster potentially kill a player because of an unfortunate dice roll? I know I can fudge it and say "19 + stuff will beat your AC", but why even bother remembering to try fudge stuff and hope they don't notice, when I can just say, "nah, these guys aren't skilled enough to crit you"
Everything else you said was also spot on! Could not agree more!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If your DM allows this to happen, that's on them for even allowing the possibility. Just because the player says they want to try and do something monumentally stupid doesn't mean the DM is obliged to let them have a chance at succeeding if it doesn't make any sense.
The rules also say that the highest DC that's a valid roll is 30. If something is above 30, then you don't roll. So, you can just say that it's not a rollable event and if they can't roll, they can't get a nat20 and automatically succeed.
In the case of a ton boulder, if I let them roll for it and they got a nat20, I'd just describe them getting really lucky - it was sat slightly elevated and their push was what it needed to go and moves under its own momentum. I hope nothing precious is in its way, now.
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.
Can we all agree that the term “D20 Test” is awful and needs to go?
TOOL PROFICIENCY
So, at 1st level, I get +2 for being proficient with the tools, and I get a +2 for being proficient in the ability, AND I get advantage.
That seems excessive.
Not how it works. If you're proficient in the Tool, you get the bonus for that. If you are also proficient in an applicable skill, you get Advantage, not another bonus to the roll.
Not at all. I rather like the shorthand, it's much easier to convey than "an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw". Being ablel to simply say "a d20 test" and indicate all three primary roll types is a welcome addition to the game's lexicon.
Also yes - I'm not a fan of the caving-to-pressure in this specific case of natural 1s and 20s being automatic failures or successes. Fortunately, a competent DM will not allow a player to even pick up their d20 for dumb action declarations like "I jump to the moon". A player gets to declare their action; the DM decides the outcome of that action, which may or may not include making a roll to see what happens. Some things are never going to happen, and some things are so easy and simple they don't merit wasting time with a roll. In my case I will not be utilizing this new rule, but fortunately that's okay. Heh, if half the playerbase can be idjits and get it wrong so consistently that Wizards changes the rule, the other half of the playerbase can continue being better than that and playing properly regardless of what the books say.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have a
fewfrick ton of big issues with the UA, but am open to corrections and people explaining why I am in fact a bumbling idiot who can not read. I dislike that crits do not apply to DM controlled enemies and allies, but only characters. That is my personal preference. I dislike that skill checks have auto fails and auto succeeds, because even with the 5-30 range a commoner who just got lucky should never be able to do significantly better than an unlucky wizard at deciphering a code. That was a bad example, but I don't want to think of a good one. I dislike that every single ****ing race under the sun and moon and solar system has spells now, because it feels like they decided that the best way to fix martial classes was to make them all spellcasters. I dislike the arcane, divine, primal spell lists, as it makes wizard significantly worse(wizards strengths include casting spells [which everyone can do now] and having a huge spell list[which all "arcane" casters have now]). I dislike level requirements for feats, as they invalidate the point of feats in my opinion, and makes them less exciting and unique. I dislike the arblings or whatever that totally not aasimar race is called, because it is simply a worse aasimar or an opposite tiefling. I dislike the lore changes regarding tieflings being from lower planes. I dislike that drow are so bad and non-unique now. I dislike the removal of dwarf subraces. Again, I hate that everyone and their mother and their mothers 70 closest friends get so many spells. I dislike inspiration being a game mechanic instead of a reward for awesome players roleplaying or being creative. I probably forgot something very important that I dislike, since I could not find one positive thing in the playtest. I think I will be sticking with "legacy" if this becomes official. Then again, I am an idiot on the internet, surrounded by smarter idiots. So what do you guys think?-Bob
N/A
Another thing I don’t get is the languages in the backgrounds. Being a guard means you speak dwarvish? Utter nonesense. It should just say your proficient in one language of your choice.
I agree, backgrounds being janky is something I forgot to include in my post.
N/A
That's definitely a hard no for me. At least for me it doesn't make sense mechanically or for role play purposes. Unlike critical hits, which are relative to the normal attack or spell damage, most skill checks being succeed or fail/yes or no type checks, it really doesn't make sense that a character with a medium-sized wizard with a -1 strength modifier has a chance of grappling a large opponent simply because they got lucky, regardless of the other creature's strength.
It looks like the intent is that most people should just build their own background, but I think they'd be better off just giving one or two examples of the entire decision process.
My impressions after reading the PDF:
This seems like a promising start to 1DND, and I look forward to seeing what they come up with next.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
At my table, not all things call for a check. If there is no chance that a PC can succeed, then I do not call for a check. I simply narrate their humiliating failure. Similarly, if there is no chance of failure, I just let them skip the check.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Alright I just read it, and it's likely that my opinions will heavily change, but here's my initial thoughts:
The Bad:
Okay the "D20 test" sucks with auto-success and auto-fail on a 1. It should not always be pass/fail. Also "d20 test" as a name hurts my soul
I dislike the rerolling of 1's in feats. This is a minor gripe.
Edit: Minor gripe, but spell attacks can't crit? This isn't a solution to the martial/caster disparity at all this just is unfun. Crits are typically too rare to be reliable unless the opponent has a condition allowing autocrits. But then those conditions should be changed not making player abilities less fun.
Bards should have their own spell list and not follow the arcane spell list. Bards should have the options to be healing bois too!
Edit: Crits being PC only is a terrible thing in my opinion. The shock on my face when I DM and I roll a crit and have to announce it to the players can be painful in the moment, but creates some great experiences. I remember in a recent game when a PC was dueling a villain who was already more powerful than the PC, and the villain crit on both attacks for multiattack. Both opponents at low hp, and both inches from death. In the end the PC won (thankfully) but it was a great moment
The new races are awful in my opinion (worst one being the Aardling which I will rant about in a sec) and lack so much of the flavorful mechanics they used to have. They all seem to just be super watered down with many of them having absurdly similar mechanics compared to the more diverse 5e we have as of now. In addition some of the races aren't the best thematically
They removed subraces from Dwarf and Halfing. You could argue they don't need them though as they're very similar, but they give a nice choice during character creation. Dragonborn breath weapon sucks again...
Casting Vicious Mockery on the Aardling: (My Aardling rant)
Alright if it wasn't obvious, I don't like the new playtest's Aardling. They're thematically awful in my opinion, even worse than the Giff in that regard.
Is it supposed to be the Aasimar-like, or the beastfolk race?
As a DM I wouldn't like it when a player would ask me to play an Ardling and then when I'm thinking celestial, they're over there thinking Mongoose-man. And I wouldn't blame the player here, the race is way too open-ended to get a general vibe. Being a DM who DMs online games this isn't going to be fun to ask during the 1000 applications I get.
What if I want a setting with specific kinds of beastfolk rather than something open-ended? Do I force reflavors of the Aardling or do I homebrew different races and ban the Aardling.
What if I don't want beastfolk? I have to immediately ban/again force reflavors what will be a PHB race?
Also if it's supposed to be a beastfolk why isn't it a beast or fey?
Additionally, I get it's supposed to be based off of celestials from religions and mythologies where celestials have animal-like features, but then why do the mechanics for the race feel like Aasimar 2.0 rather than something which gives that vibe?
The Good:
Okay I was super pessimistic when it comes to the revised backgrounds because of UA, but I actually think they're very well done! Like super well done!
The new feats are also pretty cool! They could use some changes in some areas but are nice as of now!
I mean I guess it's more simplistic and easy to access
The Neutral:
I'm surprised they're not unifying long and short rests whatsoever (they somewhat are, you can only willingly take a long rest and a short rest happens if the rest is interrupted), as some classes in 5e being reliant on short rests while others long rests really can hurt game balance. Maybe they're changing the classes up on how they regain resources.
Edit: I was wrong the new spell lists are not replacing the old ones but rather being their own separate thing! I do still like my idea of even more specific kinds of spell lists which you will see below! What I put in italics is what I thought after thinking that the spell lists for different classes would be restricted to Divine, Arcane, and Primal!
The new spell list system seems okay (with the exception of bard which should have it's own spell list). On one hand the new spell list really makes spellcasting classes feel a bit too similar, but it does allow for new flavors of characters. They do say that subclasses can access different spells from other spell lists. Honestly I'd like to see more spell list types for more specific categories of spells (this would require modifying the background feats slightly). Like rather than just the 3 pillars, we could have focus on more specific kinds of magic, like a category for curses/necromancy, one for healing, one for each of the 4 elements, etc. For what spell lists different classes get with this hypothetical idea of more specific spell lists, you could get to choose between different spell lists depending on the class, adding more customization.
Monk is gonna be absolutely broken when it comes to unarmed strikes allowing for grappling at the cost of no damage. Honestly though I don't see this as good or bad until we see revised monk in the playtest. Also new grapples seem absolutely busted (please correct me if they aren't actually busted). Grapples now get the benefit of knocking an opponent prone as well, which is insanely good.
I'm unsure about the removal of Eldritch Blast as a spell, on one hand it becoming a class feature gives warlock a bit more of an identity, on the other, we miss out on some fun builds.
Overall:
As expected from a playtest this massive, it needs some revision. In addition, I'm worried that WOTC is "oversimplifying" things too much. (I swear if they remove verbal and somatic components for "simplicity") In addition, I'm worried a lot of fun builds and a ton of customization will be lost from oversimplification. I do think that D&D One has potential however, despite the 1st playtest being a bit in a negative direction in my opinion.
Interesting how they changed grappling.
New grapples can apparently be done as opportunity attacks and are generally way more useful for protecting allies.
They're under the heading "Sample Backgrounds" - granted, there are too many samples, so it looks like a list of "official" ones, but the idea is to show "look, you can mix and match whatever the hell you want as a background"
Let's step through this.
1.) This is low-key one of the best changes in the entire document, and something my own table has been doing for quite a while. Random mooks haven't been able to crit for a while now, and y'know what? That's okay. In this, Crawford is absolutely right. Monster crits are far too punitive in tier 1 play, and in higher-tier play it's more fun for both the DM and the players to play around the Recharge mechanic on big-punch abilities. Monsters being able to crit on any random attack mostly just slowed combat down and created sometimes deeply unfun swings and spikes in encounter balance. People want tighter encounter balancing, like they constantly claim to? Disabling monsters' ability to randomly deal double damage for no discernible reason and without the slightest iota of control from either players or DM is an important step. This also reins in some of the "overbearing" power from things like Portent, Silvery Barbs, and other means of Crit Prevention and helps smoothen out power there, too. As a DM, I wholeheartedly approve of this change, especially since monsters not being able to crit does not mean monsters can't do awful things on a nat 20. See: the dullahan, possibly my personal favorite monster in current D&D.
2.) While the change is annoying, again: only bad/inexperienced DMs let people roll for every little thing no matter what. Players are entitled to declare any action they wish. They are not entitled to a roll for every action they declare. Despite what The Internet will tell you, a DM is not obligated to allow a player to roll, nor accept the results of a roll the player made without the DM calling for one. If yopur table does this, that's on the table, not the ruleset.
3.) the Origins playtest document presents nine species: humans, ardlings, dragonborn, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, and tieflings. Of those nine species, four have innate spellcasting: ardlings, elves, gnomes, and tieflings. Three of these species already had innate spellcasting in the 2014 PHB, and one of them didn't exist. Gnomes have very light spellcasting abilities, tieflings have the same level of spellcasting they always had with the addition of a fighty cantrip many will never use, elves have more uniform spellcasting as part of the Great De-Elfening, and ardlings did not previously exist. I dispute that "every race under the sun" has spells now. if you had spells before, you still do. if you did not have spells before, you don't, with the sole exception of rock gnomes and wood elves. Two subspecies getting minor innate spellcasting as part of the adjustment process is not a sky-is-falling event.
4.) You're misunderstanding the point of these spell lists. Every spellcasting class will still have its own personal spell list. This is a secondary system, distinct and separate from class-based spell lists, meant to allow non-class things like Magic Initiate to work better and to give the devs more design space to play with in the future. These spell lists are not replacing class lists, and that was never the intent nor on the table.
5.) All feats are not created equal. There is no game in which Chef is equal in power to Polearm Master. Feats being a uniform grab bag just means that only the top half-dozen or so Best Usefulest Feats get picked because there's no reason not to. Putting feats in tiers and restricting access to the more potent tiers means Wizards can be more generous with the lower-tiered feats, the actually interesting stuff that speaks to your character and gives you fun and memorable side abilities. Without some means of saying "You can pick Chef but not Polearm Master", they cannot do that. I wholeheartedly endorse this system as it gives both the WotC dev team and also homebrew rules-rebakers like us more levers to play with. I can make some really fuggin' juiced-ass homebrew feats and stick them with a 12th-level requirement, or I can make fun little quirky feats nobody would take seriously and make them level-less. This is a benefit, not a drawback.
6.) Ardlings are the answer to "how do I play a(n) [X] person in D&D?" with [X] being any animal of choice. if you want to be a dog person, a rhino person, a scarab person, a goldfish person, a cockatiel person, or a whatever-else-you-like person, now you can play an ardling and do it up. Also, aasimar were never a core PHB species; they live in M3 and they never lived in the PHB before this, so why reprint them there now? We get these new guys that give celestial-liking folks and furry-liking folks both a new set of options and aasimar are still there. Who's losing?
7.) No lore in any book has been as widely disregarded as the origins-of-tieflings lore. Everybody's tiffle has their own special origin, nobody has ever played with the "descended from a pact-sworn of Asmodeus" thing. And frankly, even if they did, this new lore doesn't really count as "new lore". It says you have an ancestral connection somewhere in the Lower Planes, which is broad enough to encompass all previous tiffle origin lore. Again, there's no actual change here. Tieflings are still touched by fiendish power; there's just more varieties of fiend out there to be touched by now.
8.) I'm actively playing a drow. You know what I lose, if/when I switch Mistletoe over to this new pattern? Three weapon proficiencies my paladin class already offered me, and Sunlight Sensitivity. Nothing else changes. I still get superior darkvision, I still get the same three inherent spells, I still get Trance, I still get free Perception proficiency, I still get free go-away-bard charm resistance. Sunlight Sensitivity is the only significant change, and the overwhelming majority of people will consider it a positive one. Personally? I fully intend to continue playing Mistletoe as being uncomfortable and disoriented in strong sunlight and I may very well still roll with disadvantage even though I technically don't have to now. This mechanical change is a nothingburger and it doesn't invalidate any previous lore people liked about drow. regardless of whether that lore is good or bad.
9.) Why? What do the subspecies offer that the unified species on offer does not? What is being lost? The mountain dwarf's extra skill point? Boo hoo. Dwarves gain extra hardiness and resilience through the mechanically fantastic Dwarven Toughness trait; between Dwarven Toughness and Dwarven Resilience, a dwarf is significantly hardier than anyone else with an equivalent Con score. They get two bonus tool proficiencies and freaking Tremorsense. The new dwarf is stacked, and easily takes the place of both Mountain and Hill varieties. I don't see where there's anything worth hating here beyond TCINIS.
10.) You have yet to provide a reason for this hatred, unfounded as it is. And since I already addressed it, moving on.
11.) Inspiration can still be awarded by a DM for someone doing something fun. Says so right in the document. You just also get it mechanically, on a d20 roll of 20. This is because tables do one of two things with Inspiration, almost universally. A.) they hoard it and never use it because it's a rare and valuable resource, and thus there's no point in giving it in the first place, or B.) they completely forget it exists. I think I've seen it used at my table maybe three total times in the 4+ years I've been playing, and I've seen it used exactly ONE TIME during my watching of various live plays - namely, in Exandria Unlimited when Aabria awarded it generously and people actually used it as a result. This is not a change to deprive the DM of a cool Scooby Snack they can give the player. THis is a change to get players to remember their f@#$ing Scooby Snacks and USE THEM, so the DM can give them more Scooby Snacks.
Does that about cover it?
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree that there are a lot of things that it's hard to tell how they'll work without seeing the changes to the classes as well. Also, I haven't watched the video, just read the PDF, so if there's something that was gone over in it, I've missed it.
Things I'm not a fan of:
Things I'm not sure about:
Things I do like:
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Or both. The core problems with the way it works in 5e is
I just want to address this (more of a addition or a "this is how I do it" thing)... As a new DM, and a relative new player (only been playing weekly sessions for about 18 months), one of the very first things I noticed was that a crit from a Goblin could end a players Level 1 character... That's no fun, for anyone! From the moment I started DMing, I start Homebrewing variants of "low tier" monsters and NPC enemies with a trait I call "Unexceptional", and here it is:
Unexceptional. A commoner cannot get a critical hit on an enemy.
That's it... Simple, and this goes on ALL the "low tier" enemies... When my players level up and start to be able to take a hit or two, then I'll introduce SOME monsters that can crit. But, until then, why the hell would I let a low tier monster potentially kill a player because of an unfortunate dice roll? I know I can fudge it and say "19 + stuff will beat your AC", but why even bother remembering to try fudge stuff and hope they don't notice, when I can just say, "nah, these guys aren't skilled enough to crit you"
Everything else you said was also spot on! Could not agree more!