I like that Common Sign Language is included in the Standard Language list.
I love this. This is definitely a step in a good direction and a sign that WotC cares about representation (because I've never seen anyone ask for this before, and its inclusion was a genuinely good surprise).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
-Spell attacks not critting: Agreed that that feels a bit lame now. It may be a balance/consistency thing? The fact that it specifies that you just double the dice of the weapon means unless otherwise specified, you don't get crit dice for Sneak Attack or Smite nukes, and that's heartbreaking.
-I think Lucky is going to be way less valuable now that Inspiration is going to be all over the place and monster crits are gone. Why would I waste a luck point if I can undo a nat 1 with an Inspiration point I have a 5% chance of regaining any time I roll a d20?
-IIRC part of the intent behind the new version of 5e is that it's fully backward-compatible with what already existed. If an old feat is no longer in the new rules, they'll almost certainly add mechanics to adapt them in. Otherwise it would be really weird with the feats/backgrounds from stuff like Planescape that's coming between now and 1DnD.
-Classes are getting their own spell lists too. This just means if you take a feat or something that grants you spells, it can say "pick an Arcane spell" instead of "pick a Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/Artificer spell."
Which isn't to say I love EVERYTHING about these rules, but I'm much much more positive than negative about them.
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.
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.
This would be the lousiest DM of all time. A DM should always be judicious about when checks are appropriate. They are not appropriate for railroading a player.
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.
If the DM was rolling (or letting you roll) in the first place, it's because they considered that a possible outcome. If a nat 20 wouldn't let them succeed... why are you letting them roll in the first place? Just declare the task impossible.
I dislike that crits do not apply to DM controlled enemies and allies, but only characters. I dislike level requirements for feats, as they invalidate the point of feats in my opinion, and makes them less exciting and unique.
-Bob
I will fully agree with you that it's not fair crits only benefit the PCs!
Anything the PC can do NPCs should be able to do when the DM controls them especially the bad guy. You want a bad guy who can challenge the PCs and if they're getting wasted by lucky rolls then how is that a challenge? It would also feel really bad as a player to roll a Nat 20 and then it be essentially meaningless just because you're the DM that day.
I don't think Feats will be less unique being level locked...I do think level locking will just be another reason for PCs not select them over stat increases. The free Feat at level one is a good way to maybe get PCs interested in using them more and it gives them an element they wouldn't have gotten otherwise but post that I wouldn't go messing with them too much given players don't use them as is; the only "level lock" there should be is the same as it is now where you can only take them at upgrade levels. If anything they should be looking at removing pre-requisites on some as they are now or adding more that can actually do fun things because the ratio now of upgrade V take a Feat is extremely one sided when it comes to players and there's some nice Feats but others compared to them just aren't worth it long run.
Resilent as an example is pretty lame compared to Sharpshooter or even Healer.
Quote from Groble >> "Also an Urchin having so much gold is ridiculous. The starting class equipment shouldn’t be the same value for everyone. Some backgrounds have more money."
Maybe they're trying to say you were an urchin and you've kind of worked your way up since the very beginning so you would have some money?
I get you though, urchins are basically beggars and so they wouldn't have as much money as a merchant or noble and a noble would have more money than any starting background. I feel they're trying to make the starting point fair for all the PCs but I agree you wouldn't have the same amounts regardless of your background. A hermit and a solider aren't going to have the same amount of cash if you went into a fantasy town and pulled 10 of each aside to see much they had on them and again no one is going to have as much as a noble.
Like a lot with this announcement, I can see where they maybe were coming from with this but the execution is not where it needs to be for release if you ask me.
-Spell attacks not critting: Agreed that that feels a bit lame now. It may be a balance/consistency thing? The fact that it specifies that you just double the dice of the weapon means unless otherwise specified, you don't get crit dice for Sneak Attack or Smite nukes, and that's heartbreaking.
-Classes are getting their own spell lists too. This just means if you take a feat or something that grants you spells, it can say "pick an Arcane spell" instead of "pick a Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/Artificer spell."
Yup, I got that now, but it definitely wasn't clear from the PDF only, and I doubt I'm the only one who's not going to watch it.
The new Lucky feat is a bit problematic, because it's applying advantage after rolling. If you didn't have disadvantage, it's just a reroll and works the same way as it did before. However, if you had disadvantage, it's now complicated, because the effect of advantage on a roll with disadvantage is to negate the disadvantage. So do you:
Roll one die, decide whether to use lucky, and if not, roll the second die for disadvantage?
Roll two dice in order (or with different colors) and remove the second roll if you use lucky?
Roll two dice and choose which you like?
None of those options really feel right to me. The most feasible might be to just change lucky so you have to declare it before rolling (big nerf, but on the other hand they've already given it the ability to work up to six times per day).
Honestly you could argue some tables roll too much to begin with so this is where that might happen not because the DM really wants it to, but because that's how they've been trained if you will to do a moment.
That's something I'm interested in seeing that Jeremy talked about in another video - newbie friendling the DMG. You don't have to roll for everything. Yes, rolling the dice is fun and you want to play with them since you own them but not every moment has to be rolled for and maybe the next generation DMG will comment on this.
So it's more of a case of it being accidentally used than intentionally.
Maybe it's just the language and the actual execution isn't how they meant it but saying Nat 20 is an instant success no matter what is going to lead to issues.
I'm really not liking a lot of the reworkings here, and people can chastise me if they want.
1: I still want races to have racial ability scores, EVEN IF you provide variants or alternatives it's a good idea to get a general consensus of what this race CAN do. A goliath is naturally larger than a human on average, so NATURALLY they would be stronger ON AVERAGE than a human. Does this mean that all goliaths are stronger than human? No. is it unlikely for a human to be stronger than a goliath? Also no. That's why we have a full 0-20 scale.
2: I don't like a players ability scores to be based entirely on a background, though I'm not against backgrounds being somewhat more intuitive. I'd like to see cultural background options, not professional ones. There doesn't seem to be, with this playtest, much of a way to make an iconic character model anymore, IF the new system is the only system we are working with. I'm not the biggest fan of language proficiencies being tied to certain background either. Why is it necessary that an artisan understand gnomish, is it impossible to be an artisan if you aren't familiar with gnomes, to worlds without gnomes have no artisans? If this is made to be customizable and swapped out, then why could this philosophy not have been used with racial traits as well.
3: I don't think it was ever necessary to decide whether or not a spell was Primal, Divine, or Arcane. This was something mostly used in 4e, but not all that important. By some definitions, unless *insert class* gains spells from *insert spell type list* like Pathfinder 2e, I don't think this is necessary. For example some wizards can pull from normally divine spells (see thaumaturge UA) and Clerics can draw from primal sources (clerics of nature).
4: A lot of this seems more about book-keeping than anything else. Backgrounds in previous editions (as far back as 3.5 as far as I've played) have never been this in depth, and they have become so because it seems that the interest in being a character has become less about the race and more about where you come from. While I have no problem with fleshing out backgrounds, players without the desire to flesh out their background (and there are many) don't need so much book keeping attached to the mechanic. Previous backgrounds were simple providing small buffs, bonus languages, ribbon benefits and a player could lean in heavily to their background with roll play. Could they benefit from background feats, sure I don't have a problem with that. But a lot of this is coming almost at the expense of races in general.
5: Races seem to be getting the biggest shaft, which almost seems like the point is now being made that "it's not special to be a member of X race". This coming from the idea that races have been revised... what, three times now (PHB, Racial Stat options in Tasha's, Complete race revisions in Multiverse) and are now wholly different from what they were, almost as if using any older material is not suggested. If that's the case why make it backwards compatible at all?
6: not really seeing aasimar is something I don't much like, but assume may be presented later. If they have been replaced entirely with the Ardling I'm going to be even madder because it will just feel like 4e replacing them with the Deva all over again.
7: Did feats need to have levels? was there a reason to give feats levels? could they not have had level prerequisites, how many feats will require levels?
8: Was there ever a reason to lump attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks into one term? I was unnerved by the removal of Skill checks being lumped into ability checks enough, but I really don't like the idea of "d20 Tests". It sounds very THAC0 to me. I don't like a nat 20 always succeeding or a nat 1 always failing, there have been times where some people cannot fail to do basic things. And I quote from a rule book for 4e "It doesn't matter if the wall is slick as glass and covered in duck fat, the DC to climb a rope is always 10". If a DC for a player lifting an adamantine portcullis is 25 and they only have a +3 strength modifier, no nat 20 is going to lift that portcullis. This will allow players to break down a castle wall with a requisite strength check to break stone as long as they roll a Nat 20.
9: No half-elves. Why? They have been a standing race for at least 15 years, maybe longer dependent on 3.5 rules, so why remove them as a default race now? To promote the flexibility or lack-there-of of more half-breed races with optional rules?
10: Critical Hits, what the heck? Why can't spell attacks cause them, they are attack rolls all the same. Why do critical hits grant inspiration? I've always granted inspiration when it was most granted by a situation but not ever critical hit? Nat 20s automatically succeed? So a player who decides to (and I've tried this before myself) walk through a massive bronze statue can just DO SO if they roll a nat 20? oh no, only if they make a dice roll, so then PUNCH the statue, unnarmed attack, nat 20 or, push the metal apart, nat 20 stregth check, done. Also why can't enemies score critical hits, is winning now more important than the immersion of the game? This just seems dumb at this point.
There ARE thing I do like. Background providing skill bonuses, to me, is exactly what several of them should have done, even give a few some relevant feat options. I don't mind the Ardling when in consideration for things like Avorals. I think Pathfinder did a MUCH better job at making Aasimars and Tieflings of various lineages seem different however.
[REDACTED]
Notes: Do not try and circumvent rules on prohibited topics
I have yet to read the PDF in detail and haven't watched the video. I have read this thread and appreciate the thoughtful posts and responses.
That said, I really, reallyhate the changes to ability checks and saves (auto fails and success). HATE IT. Assuming I use the new rule set, I will be house ruling to remain as it is in the rules today.
Finally, vehementlydisagree with limiting critical hits to PCs only. Randomness and unexpected boons and banes are part of the game. This includes that gnoll archer getting a really luck shot and its arrow doing double damage. I'd be open to certain low CR creatures lacking the ability - maybe - but I hate this rule. Once again: a house rule for me will take care of it.
The new Lucky feat is a bit problematic, because it's applying advantage after rolling. If you didn't have disadvantage, it's just a reroll and works the same way as it did before. However, if you had disadvantage, it's now complicated, because the effect of advantage on a roll with disadvantage is to negate the disadvantage. So do you:
Roll one die, decide whether to use lucky, and if not, roll the second die for disadvantage?
Roll two dice in order (or with different colors) and remove the second roll if you use lucky?
Roll two dice and choose which you like?
None of those options really feel right to me. The most feasible might be to just change lucky so you have to declare it before rolling (big nerf, but on the other hand they've already given it the ability to work up to six times per day).
What do people think inspiration rules? As a DM and player, I never liked the inspiration mechanic since it seems to promote “winning” at D&D rather than promoting failing forward or accepting failure which could lead to great narratives and plot! Now with critical rolls granting more inspiration, this seems like a chain reaction to let’s beat everything the DM throws at us. What are we doing here if that’s the case? As a DM I might as well set all DC to 5 and grant everyone invincibility. I say inspiration should be awarded to those who accept failure.
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)
What do people think inspiration rules? As a DM and player, I never liked the inspiration mechanic since it seems to promote “winning” at D&D rather than promoting failing forward or accepting failure which could lead to great narratives and plot! Now with critical rolls granting more inspiration, this seems like a chain reaction to let’s beat everything the DM throws at us. What are we doing here if that’s the case? As a DM I might as well set all DC to 5 and grant everyone invincibility. I say inspiration should be awarded to those who accept failure.
I mean, discarding the fact that there's only a 5% chance of getting inspiration from a d20 roll, even with inspiration, there's still a high chance of failure on rolls with high DC/AC targets. It's not like inspiration grants you an instant success.
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?
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?
Has this happened a lot in your games? I have yet to kill a character or have a character killed in a single hit in the past 9 years of playing 5e.
If people get it wrong on a first read, the presentation is clumsy.
I love this. This is definitely a step in a good direction and a sign that WotC cares about representation (because I've never seen anyone ask for this before, and its inclusion was a genuinely good surprise).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No. Some people are just bad at reading. Especially people on the internet.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
-Spell attacks not critting: Agreed that that feels a bit lame now. It may be a balance/consistency thing? The fact that it specifies that you just double the dice of the weapon means unless otherwise specified, you don't get crit dice for Sneak Attack or Smite nukes, and that's heartbreaking.
-I think Lucky is going to be way less valuable now that Inspiration is going to be all over the place and monster crits are gone. Why would I waste a luck point if I can undo a nat 1 with an Inspiration point I have a 5% chance of regaining any time I roll a d20?
-IIRC part of the intent behind the new version of 5e is that it's fully backward-compatible with what already existed. If an old feat is no longer in the new rules, they'll almost certainly add mechanics to adapt them in. Otherwise it would be really weird with the feats/backgrounds from stuff like Planescape that's coming between now and 1DnD.
-Classes are getting their own spell lists too. This just means if you take a feat or something that grants you spells, it can say "pick an Arcane spell" instead of "pick a Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Warlock/Artificer spell."
Which isn't to say I love EVERYTHING about these rules, but I'm much much more positive than negative about them.
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.
This would be the lousiest DM of all time. A DM should always be judicious about when checks are appropriate. They are not appropriate for railroading a player.
If the DM was rolling (or letting you roll) in the first place, it's because they considered that a possible outcome. If a nat 20 wouldn't let them succeed... why are you letting them roll in the first place? Just declare the task impossible.
I will fully agree with you that it's not fair crits only benefit the PCs!
Anything the PC can do NPCs should be able to do when the DM controls them especially the bad guy. You want a bad guy who can challenge the PCs and if they're getting wasted by lucky rolls then how is that a challenge? It would also feel really bad as a player to roll a Nat 20 and then it be essentially meaningless just because you're the DM that day.
I don't think Feats will be less unique being level locked...I do think level locking will just be another reason for PCs not select them over stat increases. The free Feat at level one is a good way to maybe get PCs interested in using them more and it gives them an element they wouldn't have gotten otherwise but post that I wouldn't go messing with them too much given players don't use them as is; the only "level lock" there should be is the same as it is now where you can only take them at upgrade levels. If anything they should be looking at removing pre-requisites on some as they are now or adding more that can actually do fun things because the ratio now of upgrade V take a Feat is extremely one sided when it comes to players and there's some nice Feats but others compared to them just aren't worth it long run.
Resilent as an example is pretty lame compared to Sharpshooter or even Healer.
Quote from Groble >>
"Also an Urchin having so much gold is ridiculous. The starting class equipment shouldn’t be the same value for everyone. Some backgrounds have more money."
Maybe they're trying to say you were an urchin and you've kind of worked your way up since the very beginning so you would have some money?
I get you though, urchins are basically beggars and so they wouldn't have as much money as a merchant or noble and a noble would have more money than any starting background. I feel they're trying to make the starting point fair for all the PCs but I agree you wouldn't have the same amounts regardless of your background. A hermit and a solider aren't going to have the same amount of cash if you went into a fantasy town and pulled 10 of each aside to see much they had on them and again no one is going to have as much as a noble.
Like a lot with this announcement, I can see where they maybe were coming from with this but the execution is not where it needs to be for release if you ask me.
I just want to roll all my clicketyclacks!
Yup, I got that now, but it definitely wasn't clear from the PDF only, and I doubt I'm the only one who's not going to watch it.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
This has already been addressed by Sage Advice.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Honestly you could argue some tables roll too much to begin with so this is where that might happen not because the DM really wants it to, but because that's how they've been trained if you will to do a moment.
That's something I'm interested in seeing that Jeremy talked about in another video - newbie friendling the DMG. You don't have to roll for everything. Yes, rolling the dice is fun and you want to play with them since you own them but not every moment has to be rolled for and maybe the next generation DMG will comment on this.
So it's more of a case of it being accidentally used than intentionally.
Maybe it's just the language and the actual execution isn't how they meant it but saying Nat 20 is an instant success no matter what is going to lead to issues.
I'm really not liking a lot of the reworkings here, and people can chastise me if they want.
1: I still want races to have racial ability scores, EVEN IF you provide variants or alternatives it's a good idea to get a general consensus of what this race CAN do. A goliath is naturally larger than a human on average, so NATURALLY they would be stronger ON AVERAGE than a human. Does this mean that all goliaths are stronger than human? No. is it unlikely for a human to be stronger than a goliath? Also no. That's why we have a full 0-20 scale.
2: I don't like a players ability scores to be based entirely on a background, though I'm not against backgrounds being somewhat more intuitive. I'd like to see cultural background options, not professional ones. There doesn't seem to be, with this playtest, much of a way to make an iconic character model anymore, IF the new system is the only system we are working with. I'm not the biggest fan of language proficiencies being tied to certain background either. Why is it necessary that an artisan understand gnomish, is it impossible to be an artisan if you aren't familiar with gnomes, to worlds without gnomes have no artisans? If this is made to be customizable and swapped out, then why could this philosophy not have been used with racial traits as well.
3: I don't think it was ever necessary to decide whether or not a spell was Primal, Divine, or Arcane. This was something mostly used in 4e, but not all that important. By some definitions, unless *insert class* gains spells from *insert spell type list* like Pathfinder 2e, I don't think this is necessary. For example some wizards can pull from normally divine spells (see thaumaturge UA) and Clerics can draw from primal sources (clerics of nature).
4: A lot of this seems more about book-keeping than anything else. Backgrounds in previous editions (as far back as 3.5 as far as I've played) have never been this in depth, and they have become so because it seems that the interest in being a character has become less about the race and more about where you come from. While I have no problem with fleshing out backgrounds, players without the desire to flesh out their background (and there are many) don't need so much book keeping attached to the mechanic. Previous backgrounds were simple providing small buffs, bonus languages, ribbon benefits and a player could lean in heavily to their background with roll play. Could they benefit from background feats, sure I don't have a problem with that. But a lot of this is coming almost at the expense of races in general.
5: Races seem to be getting the biggest shaft, which almost seems like the point is now being made that "it's not special to be a member of X race". This coming from the idea that races have been revised... what, three times now (PHB, Racial Stat options in Tasha's, Complete race revisions in Multiverse) and are now wholly different from what they were, almost as if using any older material is not suggested. If that's the case why make it backwards compatible at all?
6: not really seeing aasimar is something I don't much like, but assume may be presented later. If they have been replaced entirely with the Ardling I'm going to be even madder because it will just feel like 4e replacing them with the Deva all over again.
7: Did feats need to have levels? was there a reason to give feats levels? could they not have had level prerequisites, how many feats will require levels?
8: Was there ever a reason to lump attack rolls, saving throws, and ability checks into one term? I was unnerved by the removal of Skill checks being lumped into ability checks enough, but I really don't like the idea of "d20 Tests". It sounds very THAC0 to me. I don't like a nat 20 always succeeding or a nat 1 always failing, there have been times where some people cannot fail to do basic things. And I quote from a rule book for 4e "It doesn't matter if the wall is slick as glass and covered in duck fat, the DC to climb a rope is always 10". If a DC for a player lifting an adamantine portcullis is 25 and they only have a +3 strength modifier, no nat 20 is going to lift that portcullis. This will allow players to break down a castle wall with a requisite strength check to break stone as long as they roll a Nat 20.
9: No half-elves. Why? They have been a standing race for at least 15 years, maybe longer dependent on 3.5 rules, so why remove them as a default race now? To promote the flexibility or lack-there-of of more half-breed races with optional rules?
10: Critical Hits, what the heck? Why can't spell attacks cause them, they are attack rolls all the same. Why do critical hits grant inspiration? I've always granted inspiration when it was most granted by a situation but not ever critical hit? Nat 20s automatically succeed? So a player who decides to (and I've tried this before myself) walk through a massive bronze statue can just DO SO if they roll a nat 20? oh no, only if they make a dice roll, so then PUNCH the statue, unnarmed attack, nat 20 or, push the metal apart, nat 20 stregth check, done. Also why can't enemies score critical hits, is winning now more important than the immersion of the game? This just seems dumb at this point.
There ARE thing I do like. Background providing skill bonuses, to me, is exactly what several of them should have done, even give a few some relevant feat options. I don't mind the Ardling when in consideration for things like Avorals. I think Pathfinder did a MUCH better job at making Aasimars and Tieflings of various lineages seem different however.
[REDACTED]
I have yet to read the PDF in detail and haven't watched the video. I have read this thread and appreciate the thoughtful posts and responses.
That said, I really, really hate the changes to ability checks and saves (auto fails and success). HATE IT. Assuming I use the new rule set, I will be house ruling to remain as it is in the rules today.
Similarly, saying spell attacks can't crit is boolsheet. Again, I'll houserule this.
Finally, vehemently disagree with limiting critical hits to PCs only. Randomness and unexpected boons and banes are part of the game. This includes that gnoll archer getting a really luck shot and its arrow doing double damage. I'd be open to certain low CR creatures lacking the ability - maybe - but I hate this rule. Once again: a house rule for me will take care of it.
That's the current version of lucky, not the new version.
What do people think inspiration rules? As a DM and player, I never liked the inspiration mechanic since it seems to promote “winning” at D&D rather than promoting failing forward or accepting failure which could lead to great narratives and plot! Now with critical rolls granting more inspiration, this seems like a chain reaction to let’s beat everything the DM throws at us. What are we doing here if that’s the case? As a DM I might as well set all DC to 5 and grant everyone invincibility. I say inspiration should be awarded to those who accept failure.
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)
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
I mean, discarding the fact that there's only a 5% chance of getting inspiration from a d20 roll, even with inspiration, there's still a high chance of failure on rolls with high DC/AC targets. It's not like inspiration grants you an instant success.
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?
Has this happened a lot in your games? I have yet to kill a character or have a character killed in a single hit in the past 9 years of playing 5e.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A critical hit drastically changing the outcome of a battle, especially at low levels? I mean, yeah.