I really loved the proposed changes for the Search action, and the addition of the Study action.
I actually hate those. To me, it is like PC's are wondering around with their brains shut off, only comprehending one thing at a time and only on a successful skill check. They literally cannot think and chew gum at the same time.
No, you can only focus on one thinking about one specific thing at a time, and only on a successful skill check. Like, when someone starts describing a movie and you have to stop and think about it for a moment to remember the title. Or quick, what’s the Pythagorean theorem? What’s the 18th letter of the alphabet? Took you a moment to think of the answers, didn’t it? That’s what those checks are for. The rest of the time you’re relying on your Passive Scores.
Now chewing, much like breathing and keeping your heart breathing doesn’t actually require active cognitive thought for the overwhelming majority of people. I don’t presume to speak for you, maybe you do need to focus specifically on chewing v breathing. Don’t want to do both at the same time lest one asphixiate, I understand that. Some things are certainly just more difficult for some folks than others. So if your experience is different than that’s something else entirely. I don’t judge. But chewing is not something I’ve ever had to actually put much thought into. 🤷♂️
18th letter does take a moment to remember, but the most obvious way to get there is to count from A, and you probably are not counting more than one letter per second so it would take most people 3 rounds to get there, if they did not stumble at all. Two rounds if coming backwards from Z. BUT one can do that while walking a tightrope (for example of something that likely requires active attention to do).
Just like you can be having witty repartee in the middle of a swordfight.
A² + B² = C² is like E = MC² or any other easily memorized formula. Some of us can, actually, do math in our heads while doing other things. When you know something well, you know it. You do not need an extra 6 seconds to think about it. If you did, you would be useless in combat or even walking. And a skill check to see if you know / remember something is just that. It is not research time, which could require days/weeks/months, heck, a lifetime. It is an abstract check to see if your character simply... knows.
I regularly do math in my head during long drives to help me stay awake, so I get it. But that’s the difference between a DM looking at your Passive Score and deciding your character just “knows” something vs them deciding you actually need to roll for it. As a DM, if I decide something should be relatively easy for someone of a certain intellect (Int) and level of knowledge (proficiency) to o generally know, and if your PC’s Passive Score is sufficiently high enough to easily cover that DC, then I’ma no call for a Study roll. I’ma only call for a Study roll if I determine that A) your PC would actively need to think about something, and B) has a reasonably high possibility of not being able to call forth that information. (Remember, if both success and failureare not possible there’s no need to call for a roll.)
I have to ask you something though. You keep mentioning having to make these checks during combat. When in the hell was the last time you had to make a Wisdom (Perception) check so bad during combat?!? Your characters regularly try to look for clues and figure out what they mean during combat? No, probably not. Sometimes sure, but the overwhelming majority of the time these actions are taken outside of combat. Your character is standing in front of a bookshelf contemplating things to discern if they’re missing something or not. Or trying to work out a puzzle and cogitating things. Or studying a foe before combat to size them up. Or pretty much any time other than combat when it not anctively all stabby-burny-MDK o’clock. And if you really, really need to think about something that hard that immediately during stabby-burny-MDK time, then yeah, I would expect it to put a hitch in yer giddyup momentarily. Just like making a skill check during combat does now RAW.
What I like about the proposed Search and Study Actions is that they officially codified what all each action is meant to accomplish, and drew specific distinctions about which checks are used for what. No more would Investigation be confuzzled with Perception under a nebulous Search action, nope. One skill does one task while the other is good for something completely different. And no more need DM’s make guesswork as to which skills are more appropriate for knowing about which subjects, nope. It list which subjects are covered by which skills. And anything not listed can at least now be more easily determined through logical reasoning as to which skill would best apply as opposed to vague guesswork or intuition because now there are at least examples to refer to and use as general guidelines.
When you take the Search Action, you make a Wisdom Check to discern something that isn't obvious. The Search table suggests which Skills are applicable when you take this Action, depending on what you're trying to detect.
SEARCH
Skill
Thing to Detect
Insight
Creature's state of mind
Medicine
Creature's ailment
Perception
Concealed creature or object
Survival
Tracks or food
STUDY [ACTION]
When you take the Study Action, you make an Intelligence Check to study your memory, a book, a creature, a clue, an object, or another source of knowledge and call to mind an important piece of information about it.
The Areas of Knowledge table suggests which Skills are applicable when you take this Action, depending on the area of knowledge the Intelligence Check is about.
AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE
Skill
Areas
Arcana
Spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, planes of existence, and certain creatures (Aberrations, Constructs,
Elementals, Fey, and Monstrosities)
History
Historic events and people, ancient civilizations, wars, and certain creatures (Giants and Humanoids)
Investigation
Traps, ciphers, riddles, and gadgetry
Nature
Terrain, flora, weather, and certain creatures (Beasts, Dragons, Oozes, and Plants)
Religion
Deities, religious hierarchies and rites, holy symbols, cults, and certain creatures (Celestials, Fiends, and Undead)
And what the heck, while we’re here I’ll admit it, I liked the “slowed” condition too GDI!! 😝
SLOWED [CONDITION]
While you are Slowed, you experience the following effects:
Limited Movement. You must spend 1 extra foot of movement for every foot you move using your Speed.
Attacks Affected. Attack Rolls against you have Advantage.
Dexterity Saves Affected. You have Disadvantage on Dexterity Saving Throws.
You seem to still be advocating an all or nothing system. If something is intended to be helpful to a tough boss fight, the characters are either told outright that it is the key to winning, or they have to guess what to pay attention to, paying an attack opportunity each round they make such a guess.
That's already the way the rules work? Making a lore check in combat is Improvising an Action, and (surprise) costs an action. But yes, if a PC wants to find a useful clue in combat, they should use an action to do it.
Where in the rules does it say that skill checks always cost actions?
It's clearly doing something, and free actions aren't a thing in 5e.
The Hide, Search, and Grapple Actions are all essentially just skill checks that cost an Action, so there is precedent. However I regularly call for checks and don’t necessarily charge the player their PC’s action to do it since it doesn’t explicitly state that it must cost an action to make a check.
Where in the rules does it say that skill checks always cost actions?
It's clearly doing something, and free actions aren't a thing in 5e.
The Hide, Search, and Grapple Actions are all essentially just skill checks that cost an Action, so there is precedent. However I regularly call for checks and don’t necessarily charge the player their PC’s action to do it since it doesn’t explicitly state that it must cost an action to make a check.
From the DnDBeyond Basic Rules...
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.
This is found under Ability Checks, where Skills are also found.
it means that if there is a chance you might succeed or might fail, that you have to make a check, which cost an action. If there is no chance to fail you automatically succeed, and it cost you no action. If you would automatically fail, no check is required (because you didn’t attempt anything), therefore, no action is spent.
Just considering it difficult terrain is another possibility, yes, but that might as well equate to the PC having no problems, since it only affects movement rate and unless the PC is right at the bow or stern, they likely are within a round of anywhere they would want to move, regardless.
The standard is that resisting a problem is a save, not a check. It looks like the 2024 book is being more rigorous about that, since in 2014 resisting grapple was a free action athletics check.
The main thing I like about OneD&D are the proposed Weapon Mastery rules. I will probably tweak them, though.
Though I still have complaints about several aspects of certain classes, I don't care for adjusting the classes enough to change them, except Hexblades, which have always been catnip to power gamer uhhhhhhh, cats. Also don't believe that the nuance of martial arts can be captured by Monks in sword-and-sorcery fiction without completely re-working them, which WotC is clearly unable or unwilling to do.
There has been noticeable power-creep in content in Tasha's and other books, so I review every subclass before I let players use them.
We got 7 and change months of play testing the UA material released and sorting that crap out, and really finding out if just those suggestions really are compatible with the 5E current rules.
Then we will get the actual new rules and find out what is what?
I mean has anyone really put the UA material though the grinder?
I'm not sure if this counts, so hopefully someone corrects me. I have been using the Lairs of Etharis Adventure booklet, the Grimhollow quests, as a small campaign of sorts. I hope in the future they add the entire campaign setting of Grimhollow, so I can have dndb access to some of those subclasses in Grimhollow. Just recently made it to the third quest with the kobolds, starting that out after a side quest of my own making.. Do hope in the near future they add Grimhollow as a full campaign setting I can purchase, though.
This is more of a collection of questions regarding the changes and additions that Wizards of the Coast has made to 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
Questions such as.....
1. A.I. Art in new modules
2. New Classes and Races
3. The idea of ONE D&D as a whole
Also, this is an open opinion forum, so anything goes.
I got baited into clicking on this thread by the wildly unrelated title that asks whether or not anybody buys the new books. So I'll respond to that in addition to these three questions.
0.Of course people buy and use the new content. Honestly, there are likely millions who haven't even the faintest ideas of these "issues". Most of the people that know don't care. Many people that care still buy new books. And as long as Wotzy doesn't start a book title with the letter S I'll be buying it because it's probably not another Strixhaven or Spelljammer. Also, one of the greatest adventures ever came out not that long ago: Affair on the Concordant Express (in Keys From the Golden Vault).
1. I dunno completely how to feel about AI anymore since it's so hard to repel but I'd generally say me no likey AI art or AI assisted art in books. Though I doubt Wizards would've cared about the AI art without the outcry, they also weren't informed about it and they quickly banned AI art for both D&D and Magic. So that situation isn't gonna deter me from purchasing anything.
2. We aren't seeing new classes or new species in the core rulebooks for 1D&D unless I missed something or something changes (which are both definitely possible). And if there were, that likely wouldn't be a big deal to me. And new species in new 5e books isn't much of a problem to me as there isn't any necessity to allow them in games.
3.Absolutely! A game doesn't survive or improve by stagnantly refusing to move on from one edition to another. And remember, there isn't a Black Pudding ready to corrode your weapons and swallow you whole if you don't switch to One D&D.
PS. Sorry if I"m blabbering like an incoherent Gibbering Mouther or if my yapping is getting to you. I only got 6 hours of sleep and have sleep apnea so I'm probably not writing properly at the moment.
This is more of a collection of questions regarding the changes and additions that Wizards of the Coast has made to 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
Questions such as.....
1. A.I. Art in new modules
2. New Classes and Races
3. The idea of ONE D&D as a whole
Also, this is an open opinion forum, so anything goes.
1. I am For AI art for personal use the idea of using AI, claiming it belongs to you and trying to sell it is repugnant.
2 and 3. The only thing I liked out of the new material was the Ardling which when i read it was being dropped from the work. I lost all interest. I do not care if it is not a new edition or whatever name they are applying to it. I do not care if they make all the content i have purchased is converted to legacy content as long as i still have access to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I regularly do math in my head during long drives to help me stay awake, so I get it. But that’s the difference between a DM looking at your Passive Score and deciding your character just “knows” something vs them deciding you actually need to roll for it. As a DM, if I decide something should be relatively easy for someone of a certain intellect (Int) and level of knowledge (proficiency) to o generally know, and if your PC’s Passive Score is sufficiently high enough to easily cover that DC, then I’ma no call for a Study roll. I’ma only call for a Study roll if I determine that A) your PC would actively need to think about something, and B) has a reasonably high possibility of not being able to call forth that information. (Remember, if both success and failureare not possible there’s no need to call for a roll.)
I have to ask you something though. You keep mentioning having to make these checks during combat. When in the hell was the last time you had to make a Wisdom (Perception) check so bad during combat?!? Your characters regularly try to look for clues and figure out what they mean during combat? No, probably not. Sometimes sure, but the overwhelming majority of the time these actions are taken outside of combat. Your character is standing in front of a bookshelf contemplating things to discern if they’re missing something or not. Or trying to work out a puzzle and cogitating things. Or studying a foe before combat to size them up. Or pretty much any time other than combat when it not anctively all stabby-burny-MDK o’clock. And if you really, really need to think about something that hard that immediately during stabby-burny-MDK time, then yeah, I would expect it to put a hitch in yer giddyup momentarily. Just like making a skill check during combat does now RAW.
What I like about the proposed Search and Study Actions is that they officially codified what all each action is meant to accomplish, and drew specific distinctions about which checks are used for what. No more would Investigation be confuzzled with Perception under a nebulous Search action, nope. One skill does one task while the other is good for something completely different. And no more need DM’s make guesswork as to which skills are more appropriate for knowing about which subjects, nope. It list which subjects are covered by which skills. And anything not listed can at least now be more easily determined through logical reasoning as to which skill would best apply as opposed to vague guesswork or intuition because now there are at least examples to refer to and use as general guidelines.
I say “viva the Study Action!!” I’m so ready for it I wish it was already tooltipped on here DDB. And for anyone not familiar with what the heck we’re on above here, here’re the proposed 1DD rules we’re discussing (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest2):
And what the heck, while we’re here I’ll admit it, I liked the “slowed” condition too GDI!! 😝
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's already the way the rules work? Making a lore check in combat is Improvising an Action, and (surprise) costs an action. But yes, if a PC wants to find a useful clue in combat, they should use an action to do it.
It's clearly doing something, and free actions aren't a thing in 5e.
The Hide, Search, and Grapple Actions are all essentially just skill checks that cost an Action, so there is precedent. However I regularly call for checks and don’t necessarily charge the player their PC’s action to do it since it doesn’t explicitly state that it must cost an action to make a check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ah, well, there ya go. Thanks!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
it means that if there is a chance you might succeed or might fail, that you have to make a check, which cost an action. If there is no chance to fail you automatically succeed, and it cost you no action. If you would automatically fail, no check is required (because you didn’t attempt anything), therefore, no action is spent.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Does your DM usually call for a check to breath normally every 6 seconds? GTFO.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The standard is that resisting a problem is a save, not a check. It looks like the 2024 book is being more rigorous about that, since in 2014 resisting grapple was a free action athletics check.
Short answer: Very selectively.
The main thing I like about OneD&D are the proposed Weapon Mastery rules. I will probably tweak them, though.
Though I still have complaints about several aspects of certain classes, I don't care for adjusting the classes enough to change them, except Hexblades, which have always been catnip to power gamer uhhhhhhh, cats. Also don't believe that the nuance of martial arts can be captured by Monks in sword-and-sorcery fiction without completely re-working them, which WotC is clearly unable or unwilling to do.
There has been noticeable power-creep in content in Tasha's and other books, so I review every subclass before I let players use them.
We got 7 and change months of play testing the UA material released and sorting that crap out, and really finding out if just those suggestions really are compatible with the 5E current rules.
Then we will get the actual new rules and find out what is what?
I mean has anyone really put the UA material though the grinder?
I'm not sure if this counts, so hopefully someone corrects me. I have been using the Lairs of Etharis Adventure booklet, the Grimhollow quests, as a small campaign of sorts. I hope in the future they add the entire campaign setting of Grimhollow, so I can have dndb access to some of those subclasses in Grimhollow. Just recently made it to the third quest with the kobolds, starting that out after a side quest of my own making.. Do hope in the near future they add Grimhollow as a full campaign setting I can purchase, though.
I got baited into clicking on this thread by the wildly unrelated title that asks whether or not anybody buys the new books. So I'll respond to that in addition to these three questions.
0.Of course people buy and use the new content. Honestly, there are likely millions who haven't even the faintest ideas of these "issues". Most of the people that know don't care. Many people that care still buy new books. And as long as Wotzy doesn't start a book title with the letter S I'll be buying it because it's probably not another Strixhaven or Spelljammer. Also, one of the greatest adventures ever came out not that long ago: Affair on the Concordant Express (in Keys From the Golden Vault).
1. I dunno completely how to feel about AI anymore since it's so hard to repel but I'd generally say me no likey AI art or AI assisted art in books. Though I doubt Wizards would've cared about the AI art without the outcry, they also weren't informed about it and they quickly banned AI art for both D&D and Magic. So that situation isn't gonna deter me from purchasing anything.
2. We aren't seeing new classes or new species in the core rulebooks for 1D&D unless I missed something or something changes (which are both definitely possible). And if there were, that likely wouldn't be a big deal to me. And new species in new 5e books isn't much of a problem to me as there isn't any necessity to allow them in games.
3.Absolutely! A game doesn't survive or improve by stagnantly refusing to move on from one edition to another. And remember, there isn't a Black Pudding ready to corrode your weapons and swallow you whole if you don't switch to One D&D.
PS. Sorry if I"m blabbering like an incoherent Gibbering Mouther or if my yapping is getting to you. I only got 6 hours of sleep and have sleep apnea so I'm probably not writing properly at the moment.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.1. I am For AI art for personal use the idea of using AI, claiming it belongs to you and trying to sell it is repugnant.
2 and 3. The only thing I liked out of the new material was the Ardling which when i read it was being dropped from the work. I lost all interest. I do not care if it is not a new edition or whatever name they are applying to it. I do not care if they make all the content i have purchased is converted to legacy content as long as i still have access to it.