I prefer 5e to 4e, but I haven’t decided yet how I feel about One D&D. I definitely don’t hate it though.
I find that I'm intrigued by 1D&D. I don't know that I like all the things that are being playtested, but like you said I don't hate it.
Me too. There are definitely parts I don’t like, for example ASIs moving to backgrounds. I for one liked those being genetic factors tied to specific races, but I know I’m in the minority there, and that I was doomed to disappointment so it’s not a shock or anything. I also don’t like loosing the Half-races as unique racial options, just reskinning other races feels super lazy and unsatisfying to me. And I definitely don’t like Ardlings, I think they’re kinda dumb and would be better in a supplementary book so they could be ignored more easily. I also wish that Goblins and Hobgoblins had been added to the PHB alongside Orcs too, and for the same reasons. But a lot of the other stuff I do like.
Me too. There are definitely parts I don’t like, for example ASIs moving to backgrounds. I for one liked those being genetic factors tied to specific races, but I know I’m in the minority there, and that I was doomed to disappointment so it’s not a shock or anything. I also don’t like loosing the Half-races as unique racial options, just reskinning other races feels super lazy and unsatisfying to me. And I definitely don’t like Ardlings, I think they’re kinda dumb and would be better in a supplementary book so they could be ignored more easily. I also wish that Goblins and Hobgoblins had been added to the PHB alongside Orcs too, and for the same reasons. But a lot of the other stuff I do like.
I definitely would prefer a more robust method for making half-races myself. I can see the logic, buuuuuut my ideal would be a more modular approach.. Although that said, I am treated to a lovely image in my head of a half-elf being asked "Such-And-So, what do your elf eyes see?" and going "Ummm...buncha trees, mostly?"
You can probably guess where I stand on the Ardling based on the past couple pages of this thread alone.😅
I don't know how I feel about the approach to inspiration here. I never hated it before, but I've always toyed with how it works in each of my campaigns, sooo...🤷♂️
One thing I don’t like is the changes to the Human race in this UA. I don’t like the Inspiration system and think it’s a bad mechanic, so until now I have simply ignored it by not awarding inspiration. Now that’s no longer even going to be an option. Me no likey.
I don't object to the Inspiration system, but it's still bad design for all the reasons given. Don't tightly couple unrelated parts of your system.
I don't like or use Inspiration as written in the current DMG, but these changes just might make me use it. However, I'm still treating it like an old Luck Point or silvery barbs, though, where you trigger it after you see the roll, not before you make it like it is currently.
So, I don't object to the concept of Inspiration and certainly don't object to the Inspiration system becoming more common/useful in 5.5e, but there's still some work to be done to convince me that it's worth the effort to use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
first off this isn't a play test, there is not a list of possible Options to play with, this is a preview...the players should be insulted about how little is thought about us for trying to push this in the way Wizards is. this is just another step in removing all danger from the game...being a hero and challenge having meaning. there is a reason people still play 1e and 2e...
6.) "GETTING RID OF MY FAVORITE SUBRACE!" Subraces are not gone. Well, they are gone, but that's because the things subraces used to do have been folded into a choice one makes within a base species. You select a Legacy/Lineage for elves, ardlings, tieflings, and gnomes, with that legacy giving you back everything your subspecies used to and in many cases a little more. You still select a draconic ancestry for dragonborn. Dwarves do not select a Legacy, but that's because the best traits of Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf were folded into the one singular 'Dwarf' species, which is arguably one of the most powerful options in the document.
so when do they get rid of race all together...too soon. I'm guessing that's on the table for 2025? An orc is going to be stronger than a halfling...logically there is no way an a halfling is going to win and arm wrestling match against the orc as a rule. that's not to say with dice, magic what ever that as an exception the halfling can win...when that happens its a major memorable moment. because its impossible...this game is were people go to live lives they are incapable of living in the real world...things like this strip the significance of being a HERO. the Dwarf is now just a Dwarf......it takes away the uniqueness of being a hill or mountain dwarf....it doesn't add uniqueness and yeah they are taking away subraces...and races are next tell everyone is just playing cookie cutter premades, if a price your head band can be purple......
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
first off this isn't a play test, there is not a list of possible Options to play with, this is a preview...the players should be insulted about how little is thought about us for trying to push this in the way Wizards is. this is just another step in removing all danger from the game...being a hero and challenge having meaning. there is a reason people still play 1e and 2e...
It literally says it's a playtest. So did Jeremy Crawford when they announced this.
It's a playtest. They're asking players and DMs to playtest the feature and decide if they like it or not.
If you're offended that they're playtesting a feature you don't like . . . you're taking a proposed change to a game mechanic personally. Which is a really dumb thing to do.
6.) "GETTING RID OF MY FAVORITE SUBRACE!" Subraces are not gone. Well, they are gone, but that's because the things subraces used to do have been folded into a choice one makes within a base species. You select a Legacy/Lineage for elves, ardlings, tieflings, and gnomes, with that legacy giving you back everything your subspecies used to and in many cases a little more. You still select a draconic ancestry for dragonborn. Dwarves do not select a Legacy, but that's because the best traits of Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf were folded into the one singular 'Dwarf' species, which is arguably one of the most powerful options in the document.
so when do they get rid of race all together...too soon. I'm guessing that's on the table for 2025? An orc is going to be stronger than a halfling...logically there is no way an a halfling is going to win and arm wrestling match against the orc as a rule. that's not to say with dice, magic what ever that as an exception the halfling can win...when that happens its a major memorable moment. because its impossible...this game is were people go to live lives they are incapable of living in the real world...things like this strip the significance of being a HERO. the Dwarf is now just a Dwarf......it takes away the uniqueness of being a hill or mountain dwarf....it doesn't add uniqueness and yeah they are taking away subraces...and races are next tell everyone is just playing cookie cutter premades, if a price your head band can be purple......
Oh, please. We've had more than enough of these strawmen and absurd arguments on this site and the discussion was settled years ago when they removed racial ASIs from published races. You're yelling at the tide. And your rant about racial ASIs isn't at all connected to removing Dwarf and Halfling subraces (which were thematically and mechanically bland and didn't need to exist).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Are you certain it is not you taking the dislike of proposed change to a game mechanic personally?
Yeah, that's not going to work. "No U" isn't a response that works on me. The "players should be offended by this change" literally proves you're overly emotionally attached to a single game mechanic. I'm just fed up with the BS people have been digitally shitting onto 5e forums lately.
Regarding the removal of meaningful cultural & mechanical significance of a race/sub-race; How is that a "strawman"? Or an absurd argument?
They're separating race and culture in the game. Because, you know, culture isn't part of your genetics. It's based on your life circumstances. And they're choosing to have races solely be genetic features now. That doesn't mean races are going away. It just means that their role in the game is changed (as it should, it's idiotic to combine the mechanics from species and culture in racial stats).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yeah, let's not go down the racial ASI route of discussion again. I'm not saying there aren't valid points to be said, but it's done. Dusted. They're not coming back. These discussions just bring out the worst in posters on either side. So please, talk about something else.
All I'll say is this observation on it is this - there has been a compromise. Rather than the old floating do-whatever-you-like-with-no-official+guidance points that we were getting, they've been relinked to story telling, but through backgrounds instead. Yeah, I know they're explicitly customisable, but that was a compromise already offered by those wanting racial ASIs. At least those ASIs have the suggestions that link them back to the story. It's the best that will ever be offered, so take it. I'm happier that we can tie backstories to mechanical bonuses like ASIs.
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.
Hells people. Nobody is a bigger proponent of fixed racial ASIs as a genetic component than I am and even I’ve given up. Let it go. Don’t like it? Don’t buy any more D&D books. (I won’t.)
As long as you read it with a careful eye, and an eye without prejudice, do people feel it is necessary to actually "Play" the new rules? Personally working on my own 5e stuff but definitely anxious about 6e, even if I never play. There's been maybe two things I agree with and loads I don't, though most of that is from a Lore perspective. How does the Feedback option work? Can I address both Mechanics and Mythology / Lore / Flavor, separate or together? Previously I've been kinda meh on these things, but I've developed a stronger bond with 5e and the direction I've seen it taking from the most recent books makes me extremely unhappy.
As long as you read it with a careful eye, and an eye without prejudice, do people feel it is necessary to actually "Play" the new rules? Personally working on my own 5e stuff but definitely anxious about 6e, even if I never play. There's been maybe two things I agree with and loads I don't, though most of that is from a Lore perspective. How does the Feedback option work? Can I address both Mechanics and Mythology / Lore / Flavor, separate or together? Previously I've been kinda meh on these things, but I've developed a stronger bond with 5e and the direction I've seen it taking from the most recent books makes me extremely unhappy.
Lore feedback isn't something you have to playtest to have opinions on, so I wouldn't imagine why you'd need to "play" with them in order to comment on it. (I personally hate the changes that confirm Moradin and Gruumsh created their children in everyD&D world, because that doesn't work for Eberron, and I'll be speaking of that negatively in the survey.)
I prefer 5e to 4e, but I haven’t decided yet how I feel about One D&D. I definitely don’t hate it though.
I find that I'm intrigued by 1D&D. I don't know that I like all the things that are being playtested, but like you said I don't hate it.
Me too. There are definitely parts I don’t like, for example ASIs moving to backgrounds. I for one liked those being genetic factors tied to specific races, but I know I’m in the minority there, and that I was doomed to disappointment so it’s not a shock or anything. I also don’t like loosing the Half-races as unique racial options, just reskinning other races feels super lazy and unsatisfying to me. And I definitely don’t like Ardlings, I think they’re kinda dumb and would be better in a supplementary book so they could be ignored more easily. I also wish that Goblins and Hobgoblins had been added to the PHB alongside Orcs too, and for the same reasons. But a lot of the other stuff I do like.
I have a feeling half race last will get the most tweaks if wizards listen to feedback, but this is after actually play testing.
ASIs to background, and more importantly keeping it the same (+1,+2) is great it means that every player at the table will be balanced and breaks the race/class connections.
Ardlings are a really interesting addition, at last in the PHB we get a playable race that is truly different. Elves, dwarves, even dragon born and tieflings are all of a kind. Arms, legs head all similar, 2 eyes, 2 ears etc. Ardlings really take a race and tell new players, this is how crazy you can get.
The other thing that has been ignored, by putting orcs, not half orcs, in as a race in the PHB we instantly start breaking old established narratives, if an orc can be a PV then they can be any alignment, meaning orcs can equally be good or evil. It forces DMs to build worlds where orcs are just a part of the world, players and DMs won’t want to be constantly RPing Orcs being hated with every NPC (well maybe in a small number of games). Orcs will stop being generic bad guy.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with generic bad guy groups so long as you keep it setting accurate. It can arguably create even more interesting stories, especially with how many races are made evil by their god.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Me too. There are definitely parts I don’t like, for example ASIs moving to backgrounds. I for one liked those being genetic factors tied to specific races, but I know I’m in the minority there, and that I was doomed to disappointment so it’s not a shock or anything. I also don’t like loosing the Half-races as unique racial options, just reskinning other races feels super lazy and unsatisfying to me. And I definitely don’t like Ardlings, I think they’re kinda dumb and would be better in a supplementary book so they could be ignored more easily. I also wish that Goblins and Hobgoblins had been added to the PHB alongside Orcs too, and for the same reasons. But a lot of the other stuff I do like.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I definitely would prefer a more robust method for making half-races myself. I can see the logic, buuuuuut my ideal would be a more modular approach.. Although that said, I am treated to a lovely image in my head of a half-elf being asked "Such-And-So, what do your elf eyes see?" and going "Ummm...buncha trees, mostly?"
You can probably guess where I stand on the Ardling based on the past couple pages of this thread alone.😅
I don't know how I feel about the approach to inspiration here. I never hated it before, but I've always toyed with how it works in each of my campaigns, sooo...🤷♂️
I don't object to the Inspiration system, but it's still bad design for all the reasons given. Don't tightly couple unrelated parts of your system.
I don't like or use Inspiration as written in the current DMG, but these changes just might make me use it. However, I'm still treating it like an old Luck Point or silvery barbs, though, where you trigger it after you see the roll, not before you make it like it is currently.
So, I don't object to the concept of Inspiration and certainly don't object to the Inspiration system becoming more common/useful in 5.5e, but there's still some work to be done to convince me that it's worth the effort to use it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
first off this isn't a play test, there is not a list of possible Options to play with, this is a preview...the players should be insulted about how little is thought about us for trying to push this in the way Wizards is. this is just another step in removing all danger from the game...being a hero and challenge having meaning. there is a reason people still play 1e and 2e...
so when do they get rid of race all together...too soon. I'm guessing that's on the table for 2025? An orc is going to be stronger than a halfling...logically there is no way an a halfling is going to win and arm wrestling match against the orc as a rule. that's not to say with dice, magic what ever that as an exception the halfling can win...when that happens its a major memorable moment. because its impossible...this game is were people go to live lives they are incapable of living in the real world...things like this strip the significance of being a HERO. the Dwarf is now just a Dwarf......it takes away the uniqueness of being a hill or mountain dwarf....it doesn't add uniqueness and yeah they are taking away subraces...and races are next tell everyone is just playing cookie cutter premades, if a price your head band can be purple......
It...it is playtest dude. That's exactly what Unearthed Arcana is.
I'm gonna be honest, it's hard to take the rest of your comment seriously if you can't even be bothered to read and understand what's going on.
Not really. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It's called "the writing on the wall".
It's still playtest material. There's things to be played and tested.
It literally says it's a playtest. So did Jeremy Crawford when they announced this.
It's a playtest. They're asking players and DMs to playtest the feature and decide if they like it or not.
If you're offended that they're playtesting a feature you don't like . . . you're taking a proposed change to a game mechanic personally. Which is a really dumb thing to do.
Oh, please. We've had more than enough of these strawmen and absurd arguments on this site and the discussion was settled years ago when they removed racial ASIs from published races. You're yelling at the tide. And your rant about racial ASIs isn't at all connected to removing Dwarf and Halfling subraces (which were thematically and mechanically bland and didn't need to exist).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Are you certain it is not you taking the dislike of proposed change to a game mechanic personally?
Regarding the removal of meaningful cultural & mechanical significance of a race/sub-race; How is that a "strawman"? Or an absurd argument?
Yeah, that's not going to work. "No U" isn't a response that works on me. The "players should be offended by this change" literally proves you're overly emotionally attached to a single game mechanic. I'm just fed up with the BS people have been digitally shitting onto 5e forums lately.
They're separating race and culture in the game. Because, you know, culture isn't part of your genetics. It's based on your life circumstances. And they're choosing to have races solely be genetic features now. That doesn't mean races are going away. It just means that their role in the game is changed (as it should, it's idiotic to combine the mechanics from species and culture in racial stats).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, let's not go down the racial ASI route of discussion again. I'm not saying there aren't valid points to be said, but it's done. Dusted. They're not coming back. These discussions just bring out the worst in posters on either side. So please, talk about something else.
All I'll say is this observation on it is this - there has been a compromise. Rather than the old floating do-whatever-you-like-with-no-official+guidance points that we were getting, they've been relinked to story telling, but through backgrounds instead. Yeah, I know they're explicitly customisable, but that was a compromise already offered by those wanting racial ASIs. At least those ASIs have the suggestions that link them back to the story. It's the best that will ever be offered, so take it. I'm happier that we can tie backstories to mechanical bonuses like ASIs.
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.
Hells people. Nobody is a bigger proponent of fixed racial ASIs as a genetic component than I am and even I’ve given up. Let it go. Don’t like it? Don’t buy any more D&D books. (I won’t.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I’m happy with the new rules. Like Third Sundering said, it separates your character’s genetic makeup from their cultural makeup.
As long as you read it with a careful eye, and an eye without prejudice, do people feel it is necessary to actually "Play" the new rules? Personally working on my own 5e stuff but definitely anxious about 6e, even if I never play. There's been maybe two things I agree with and loads I don't, though most of that is from a Lore perspective. How does the Feedback option work? Can I address both Mechanics and Mythology / Lore / Flavor, separate or together? Previously I've been kinda meh on these things, but I've developed a stronger bond with 5e and the direction I've seen it taking from the most recent books makes me extremely unhappy.
Lore feedback isn't something you have to playtest to have opinions on, so I wouldn't imagine why you'd need to "play" with them in order to comment on it. (I personally hate the changes that confirm Moradin and Gruumsh created their children in every D&D world, because that doesn't work for Eberron, and I'll be speaking of that negatively in the survey.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have a feeling half race last will get the most tweaks if wizards listen to feedback, but this is after actually play testing.
ASIs to background, and more importantly keeping it the same (+1,+2) is great it means that every player at the table will be balanced and breaks the race/class connections.
Ardlings are a really interesting addition, at last in the PHB we get a playable race that is truly different. Elves, dwarves, even dragon born and tieflings are all of a kind. Arms, legs head all similar, 2 eyes, 2 ears etc. Ardlings really take a race and tell new players, this is how crazy you can get.
The other thing that has been ignored, by putting orcs, not half orcs, in as a race in the PHB we instantly start breaking old established narratives, if an orc can be a PV then they can be any alignment, meaning orcs can equally be good or evil. It forces DMs to build worlds where orcs are just a part of the world, players and DMs won’t want to be constantly RPing Orcs being hated with every NPC (well maybe in a small number of games). Orcs will stop being generic bad guy.
That should have stopped 18 years ago when Eberron came out.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Why? Orcs, goblins, and bugbears are the generic badguys. It’s even encouraged in beginner adventures such as Lost Mines.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with generic bad guy groups so long as you keep it setting accurate. It can arguably create even more interesting stories, especially with how many races are made evil by their god.