1.) I see why you think this, I disagree. Enemies having crits adds suspense to my game for me, but you do you, I respect your opinion. I am not an expert DM, but my players like it, so I stick to it. I realize I have no evidence for this point. I do not care much, see my point in my original post about being an idiot.
2.) Yes, I agree. Any reasonable DM would disregard that rule. I simply do not like it.
3.) Perhaps I over reacted, but the spellcasting added to all the elf subs follows the same pattern as with the tiefling, and I just wish that spells were not handed out so readily. Its a pet peeve of mine that WOTC still has not nerfed spellcasting or buffed martials much, and I pretty much exploded when I saw that a race got pass without trace because of DM trauma.
4.)Thank you for enlightening me.
5.)Valid
6.) I understand this line of thinking, but Ardlings seem like the developers just making an Anti-tiefling. It seems uninteresting and bland to me, and i think Aasimar should get some more love. But thats simply my opinion.
7.)Alright. I see your point, and tiefling lore is a hot mess in terms of who thinks what.
8.) I just love sunlight sensitivity. Drow used to be significantly better than other elf subraces, so they balanced it and it make drow a fun and difficult race to play at times. I understand why they changed it, as drow is no longer any better than any other elf. But I still wish they kept it. Again, makes sense, but I don't care much.
9.)I was thinking of Duergars. I like them melding mountain and hill dwarves, and tremorsense is nice.
10.) already addressed
11.) I like my scooby snacks to be independent of picking human as a race. Because I use inspiration just enough that my players remember it exists and try to get it, but not enough to make it common, this change would disrupt my table. I can just ignore it, which I might. Honestly, that was just a complaint.
Thank you for taking time out of your life to point out flaws in my rant, I truly do appreciate this. I think this about covers it?
Rolling a 20 doesn’tbypass limitations on the test,such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Am I reading this right, in that rolling a 20 while under disadvantage automatically negates disadvantage?
No. Disadvantage still means you roll two dice and user the lower of the two. Rolling a 20 on one and a 7 on the other means the 20 disappears into the mists and never truly existed, only the 7 counts/matters.
Rolling a 20 doesn’tbypass limitations on the test,such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Am I reading this right, in that rolling a 20 while under disadvantage automatically negates disadvantage?
No. Disadvantage still means you roll two dice and user the lower of the two. Rolling a 20 on one and a 7 on the other means the 20 disappears into the mists and never truly existed, only the 7 counts/matters.
Is there somewhere this was specified? RAW, isn't Disadvantage a penalty on a roll?
Rolling a 20 doesn’tbypass limitations on the test,such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Am I reading this right, in that rolling a 20 while under disadvantage automatically negates disadvantage?
No. Disadvantage still means you roll two dice and user the lower of the two. Rolling a 20 on one and a 7 on the other means the 20 disappears into the mists and never truly existed, only the 7 counts/matters.
Is there somewhere this was specified? RAW, isn't Disadvantage a penalty on a roll?
No. "Bonuses and penalties to the roll" are + and - numbers. Disadvantage is a separate system. Put it this way - you only ever use one dice for resolving a d20 test. Adv/Dis means you roll two dice, but only one of them is used for the test. The other is discarded and ignored. There's nothing explicitly saying so that I can recall to mind and link right now, but this has been clarified dozens of times since the game's release in 2014. Only one dice counts for a d20 test. The higher one in case of advantage, the lower in case of disadvantage.
Rolling a 20 doesn’tbypass limitations on the test,such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Am I reading this right, in that rolling a 20 while under disadvantage automatically negates disadvantage?
No. Disadvantage still means you roll two dice and user the lower of the two. Rolling a 20 on one and a 7 on the other means the 20 disappears into the mists and never truly existed, only the 7 counts/matters.
Is there somewhere this was specified? RAW, isn't Disadvantage a penalty on a roll?
No. In some circumstances Advantage/Disadvantage can be taken as a +/-5 instead (which apparently is to large a modifier, it should be nearer 3) to speed things up, but in reality, it's just rolling two dice and taking the higher/lower value. If I roll at disadvantage and roll an 18 and a 4, then I rolled a 4. The 18 is irrelevant.
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.
1. Removal of racial ability score modifiers. I don't like this. 2. Ardlings are the new aasimars? 3. Races and classes should really not be part of the core ruleset, as they are really setting-dependent features. 4. Specific languages tied to specific backgrounds is a bad idea. 5. On the other hand, the way languages are handled in D&D has always been poorly conceived. 6. I have always disagreed with the idea that a natural 20 should be an automatic success or a critical hit, or that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure or fumble/critical miss. 7. Unarmed Strike should really be completely rethought. At the very least, the average person should be able to treat Unarmed Strike as a dual-wield/two-weapon fighting weapon, and there needs to be some sort of "martial arts" feat that allows foot strikes, as well, without being a Monk. 8. Backgrounds in general should really be completely rethought. They don't make much sense for young adult PCs, though they can make sense for older PCs, but then you have the conflict of this older PC with a storied background who is somehow only a 1st Level adventurer. 9. The Magic Initiate feat is overpowerful. Every PC now can have three spells? At the very least, that should be limited to just the cantrips.
10. The biggest problem I see with what is coming down the road for One D&D is that it runs the risk of codifying D&D in such a way as to make it impossible for people who use homebrew modifications to the game to use the digital toolsets. This is already a problem with D&D Beyond as it currently exists, with its extremely poor documentation of how the Homebrew features even work, in the first place. I do have some hopes that the interface to the Homebrew features can be improved with budgetary input from the parent company.
4. Specific languages tied to specific backgrounds is a bad idea.
They're not - those Backgrounds are under the header of "Sample Backgrounds" - it's simply a large selection of samples to show how versatile the combinations can be... Granted, there are so many they look like "official" combinations, but they're still just samples...
1. Removal of racial ability score modifiers. I don't like this.
Then don't use it. It's an optional feature.
2. Ardlings are the new aasimars?
Maybe? It's a bit unclear.
3. Races and classes should really not be part of the core ruleset, as they are really setting-dependent features.
. . . What the hell do you want to be in the PHB, then? Because, there needs to be races and classes in it. Those are necessary to play the game. So . . . there need to be races and classes in the core ruleset.
4. Specific languages tied to specific backgrounds is a bad idea.
Not really. Some of them don't make sense (Guard giving Dwarven for some reason), but Giant Foundling giving you Giant does make sense.
5. On the other hand, the way languages are handled in D&D has always been poorly conceived.
Can you elaborate? Because it's simplified to the point that it's useful.
6. I have always disagreed with the idea that a natural 20 should be an automatic success or a critical hit, or that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure or fumble/critical miss.
Well, it's a staple of the hobby to have natural 20s be critical hits, so good luck getting that to change. However, I'm a bit iffy on the changes to critical successes/fumbles, though.
7. Unarmed Strike should really be completely rethought. At the very least, the average person should be able to treat Unarmed Strike as a dual-wield/two-weapon fighting weapon, and there needs to be some sort of "martial arts" feat that allows foot strikes, as well, without being a Monk.
Unarmed strikes for any class have always allowed you to use any part of your body, IIRC. So, you can use your feet.
8. Backgrounds in general should really be completely rethought. They don't make much sense for young adult PCs, though they can make sense for older PCs, but then you have the conflict of this older PC with a storied background who is somehow only a 1st Level adventurer.
Sure they do. Backgrounds don't have to be "a job you had before you became an adventurer". They could also be "you were raised by giants", "you were a street urchin", or "you grew up as a noble". There's no reason why a younger PC wouldn't be able to have one of those backgrounds.
9. The Magic Initiate feat is overpowerful. Every PC now can have three spells? At the very least, that should be limited to just the cantrips.
It was always that way. What game were you playing for the past 8 years?
10. The biggest problem I see with what is coming down the road for One D&D is that it runs the risk of codifying D&D in such a way as to make it impossible for people who use homebrew modifications to the game to use the digital toolsets. This is already a problem with D&D Beyond as it currently exists, with its extremely poor documentation of how the Homebrew features even work, in the first place. I do have some hopes that the interface to the Homebrew features can be improved with budgetary input from the parent company.
Not true, if you play at your table you can still use homebrew rules. So, this problem isn't any bigger than it already was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
1. Removal of racial ability score modifiers. I don't like this.
They were removed months ago. This isn't really directed at you, but everyone, let's not get into this again.
2. Ardlings are the new aasimars?
Seems to be. If not, they're pretty similar concept. Although they more closely Tieflings.
3. Races and classes should really not be part of the core ruleset, as they are really setting-dependent features.
They were in the old PHB. They will be in the new one, the PHB is meant to be everything you need to play as a player.
4. Specific languages tied to specific backgrounds is a bad idea.
Yeah. I wouldn't mind groupings, but not specific ones. I guarded the Elvish prisons...I now know Dwarvish..egh.
5. On the other hand, the way languages are handled in D&D has always been poorly conceived.
No comment.
6. I have always disagreed with the idea that a natural 20 should be an automatic success or a critical hit, or that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure or fumble/critical miss.
I like it. Adds a bit of spiciness to it. Different strokes, I guess.
7. Unarmed Strike should really be completely rethought. At the very least, the average person should be able to treat Unarmed Strike as a dual-wield/two-weapon fighting weapon, and there needs to be some sort of "martial arts" feat that allows foot strikes, as well, without being a Monk.
I agree. It makes no sense that I can't punch someone twice, but put a dagger in that same hand and I can hit twice. Give dual wielding to first.fighters and boost Monks some other way.
8. Backgrounds in general should really be completely rethought. They don't make much sense for young adult PCs, though they can make sense for older PCs, but then you have the conflict of this older PC with a storied background who is somehow only a 1st Level adventurer.
Maybe. I'd want to see the replacement before giving this my blessing.
9. The Magic Initiate feat is overpowerful. Every PC now can have three spells? At the very least, that should be limited to just the cantrips.
It's too late for me to think about this too much.
10. The biggest problem I see with what is coming down the road for One D&D is that it runs the risk of codifying D&D in such a way as to make it impossible for people who use homebrew modifications to the game to use the digital toolsets. This is already a problem with D&D Beyond as it currently exists, with its extremely poor documentation of how the Homebrew features even work, in the first place. I do have some hopes that the interface to the Homebrew features can be improved with budgetary input from the parent company.
I'm not sure I follow why 1D&D (as opposed to 6e) would make this worse
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.
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).
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
A few people seem to be missing the fact that those are just examples of backgrounds they made using the custom background rules. There is nothing compulsory about them.
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
A few people seem to be missing the fact that those are just examples of backgrounds they made using the custom background rules. There is nothing compulsory about them.
The rules themselves seem fine, but the presentation is clumsy, because it winds up looking like those backgrounds are 'official'.
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
A few people seem to be missing the fact that those are just examples of backgrounds they made using the custom background rules. There is nothing compulsory about them.
The rules themselves seem fine, but the presentation is clumsy, because it winds up looking like those backgrounds are 'official'.
EVERY background gives you a language. Now, listen, languages are useless man. When every single race no matter who speaks common knowing multiple languages doesn't do you any favors except for the rare "this eldritch book has ominous text from another world, what languages can you speak?" We know players just around killing everything and don't ever really talk to the monsters. If I want something useless then I'd rather have 2 tool profs instead of an extra language.
I do however enjoy this:
SOLDIER Ability Scores:+2 Strength, +1 Constitution Skill Proficiencies:Athletics, Intimidation Tool Proficiency:Gaming Set*(one of your choice) Language:Goblin Feat:Savage Attacker You began training for war at such an early age that you carry only a precious few memories of what life was like before you took up arms. Battle is in your blood. Sometimes you catch yourself reflexively performing the basic fighting exercises you learned as a youth. Eventually, you put that training to use on the battlefield, protecting the realm by waging war and studying the strategies of goblinoid generals.
Goblins for the win!
It seems they're combining all the anthro/furry races into one race. Ew. No. Give me wolf people, not "generic angel animal people".
the feat savage attacker has too much text in it, but it's the exact same effect as the current version. You can literally keep the exact same text from 5e version and port it to 5.5 unchanged.
I don't like how EVERYTHING has nat 1s now. Keep that just on attacks.
"d20 test", no, keep the term "checks', d20 test is too wordy and sounds kinda dumb.
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
A few people seem to be missing the fact that those are just examples of backgrounds they made using the custom background rules. There is nothing compulsory about them.
The rules themselves seem fine, but the presentation is clumsy, because it winds up looking like those backgrounds are 'official'.
Unless you actually read the content.
Big Header that says "Sample Backgrounds", followed by the first sentence that says, "Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds", and people are still like, "Why do all Guards speak Dwarvish?"
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
Yes, it did Yurei.
1.) I see why you think this, I disagree. Enemies having crits adds suspense to my game for me, but you do you, I respect your opinion. I am not an expert DM, but my players like it, so I stick to it. I realize I have no evidence for this point. I do not care much, see my point in my original post about being an idiot.
2.) Yes, I agree. Any reasonable DM would disregard that rule. I simply do not like it.
3.) Perhaps I over reacted, but the spellcasting added to all the elf subs follows the same pattern as with the tiefling, and I just wish that spells were not handed out so readily. Its a pet peeve of mine that WOTC still has not nerfed spellcasting or buffed martials much, and I pretty much exploded when I saw that a race got pass without trace because of DM trauma.
4.)Thank you for enlightening me.
5.)Valid
6.) I understand this line of thinking, but Ardlings seem like the developers just making an Anti-tiefling. It seems uninteresting and bland to me, and i think Aasimar should get some more love. But thats simply my opinion.
7.)Alright. I see your point, and tiefling lore is a hot mess in terms of who thinks what.
8.) I just love sunlight sensitivity. Drow used to be significantly better than other elf subraces, so they balanced it and it make drow a fun and difficult race to play at times. I understand why they changed it, as drow is no longer any better than any other elf. But I still wish they kept it. Again, makes sense, but I don't care much.
9.)I was thinking of Duergars. I like them melding mountain and hill dwarves, and tremorsense is nice.
10.) already addressed
11.) I like my scooby snacks to be independent of picking human as a race. Because I use inspiration just enough that my players remember it exists and try to get it, but not enough to make it common, this change would disrupt my table. I can just ignore it, which I might. Honestly, that was just a complaint.
Thank you for taking time out of your life to point out flaws in my rant, I truly do appreciate this. I think this about covers it?
N/A
Rolling a 20 doesn’tbypass limitations on the test,such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Am I reading this right, in that rolling a 20 while under disadvantage automatically negates disadvantage?
No. Disadvantage still means you roll two dice and user the lower of the two. Rolling a 20 on one and a 7 on the other means the 20 disappears into the mists and never truly existed, only the 7 counts/matters.
Please do not contact or message me.
Is there somewhere this was specified? RAW, isn't Disadvantage a penalty on a roll?
Advantage and Disadvantage.
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
No. "Bonuses and penalties to the roll" are + and - numbers. Disadvantage is a separate system. Put it this way - you only ever use one dice for resolving a d20 test. Adv/Dis means you roll two dice, but only one of them is used for the test. The other is discarded and ignored. There's nothing explicitly saying so that I can recall to mind and link right now, but this has been clarified dozens of times since the game's release in 2014. Only one dice counts for a d20 test. The higher one in case of advantage, the lower in case of disadvantage.
Please do not contact or message me.
No. In some circumstances Advantage/Disadvantage can be taken as a +/-5 instead (which apparently is to large a modifier, it should be nearer 3) to speed things up, but in reality, it's just rolling two dice and taking the higher/lower value. If I roll at disadvantage and roll an 18 and a 4, then I rolled a 4. The 18 is irrelevant.
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.
I don’t get why everyone is confused by the Ardling. They’re literally just divine/upper plane Tieflings. It’s literally in the name
Ard- Irish and Scottish Gaelic word meaning ‘high, lofty’, ‘above the ground, elevated’.
1. Removal of racial ability score modifiers. I don't like this.
2. Ardlings are the new aasimars?
3. Races and classes should really not be part of the core ruleset, as they are really setting-dependent features.
4. Specific languages tied to specific backgrounds is a bad idea.
5. On the other hand, the way languages are handled in D&D has always been poorly conceived.
6. I have always disagreed with the idea that a natural 20 should be an automatic success or a critical hit, or that a natural 1 should be an automatic failure or fumble/critical miss.
7. Unarmed Strike should really be completely rethought. At the very least, the average person should be able to treat Unarmed Strike as a dual-wield/two-weapon fighting weapon, and there needs to be some sort of "martial arts" feat that allows foot strikes, as well, without being a Monk.
8. Backgrounds in general should really be completely rethought. They don't make much sense for young adult PCs, though they can make sense for older PCs, but then you have the conflict of this older PC with a storied background who is somehow only a 1st Level adventurer.
9. The Magic Initiate feat is overpowerful. Every PC now can have three spells? At the very least, that should be limited to just the cantrips.
10. The biggest problem I see with what is coming down the road for One D&D is that it runs the risk of codifying D&D in such a way as to make it impossible for people who use homebrew modifications to the game to use the digital toolsets. This is already a problem with D&D Beyond as it currently exists, with its extremely poor documentation of how the Homebrew features even work, in the first place. I do have some hopes that the interface to the Homebrew features can be improved with budgetary input from the parent company.
They're not - those Backgrounds are under the header of "Sample Backgrounds" - it's simply a large selection of samples to show how versatile the combinations can be... Granted, there are so many they look like "official" combinations, but they're still just samples...
Then don't use it. It's an optional feature.
Maybe? It's a bit unclear.
. . . What the hell do you want to be in the PHB, then? Because, there needs to be races and classes in it. Those are necessary to play the game. So . . . there need to be races and classes in the core ruleset.
Not really. Some of them don't make sense (Guard giving Dwarven for some reason), but Giant Foundling giving you Giant does make sense.
Can you elaborate? Because it's simplified to the point that it's useful.
Well, it's a staple of the hobby to have natural 20s be critical hits, so good luck getting that to change. However, I'm a bit iffy on the changes to critical successes/fumbles, though.
Unarmed strikes for any class have always allowed you to use any part of your body, IIRC. So, you can use your feet.
Sure they do. Backgrounds don't have to be "a job you had before you became an adventurer". They could also be "you were raised by giants", "you were a street urchin", or "you grew up as a noble". There's no reason why a younger PC wouldn't be able to have one of those backgrounds.
It was always that way. What game were you playing for the past 8 years?
Not true, if you play at your table you can still use homebrew rules. So, this problem isn't any bigger than it already was.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They were removed months ago. This isn't really directed at you, but everyone, let's not get into this again.
Seems to be. If not, they're pretty similar concept. Although they more closely Tieflings.
They were in the old PHB. They will be in the new one, the PHB is meant to be everything you need to play as a player.
Yeah. I wouldn't mind groupings, but not specific ones. I guarded the Elvish prisons...I now know Dwarvish..egh.
No comment.
I like it. Adds a bit of spiciness to it. Different strokes, I guess.
I agree. It makes no sense that I can't punch someone twice, but put a dagger in that same hand and I can hit twice. Give dual wielding to first.fighters and boost Monks some other way.
Maybe. I'd want to see the replacement before giving this my blessing.
I'm not sure I follow why 1D&D (as opposed to 6e) would make this worse
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.
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:
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).
With the language thing folks are commenting about. It does specifically say to swap you don't like things in the backgrounds. The idea is you get one language from your background. They give a suggested language for each background, but you can freely swap it for a different language. Same with the tool proficiencies, ability scores, etc.
A few people seem to be missing the fact that those are just examples of backgrounds they made using the custom background rules. There is nothing compulsory about them.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The rules themselves seem fine, but the presentation is clumsy, because it winds up looking like those backgrounds are 'official'.
Unless you actually read the content.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Dislike:
I do however enjoy this:
SOLDIER
Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
choice)
Language: Goblin
Feat: Savage Attacker
You began training for war at such an early age
that you carry only a precious few memories of
what life was like before you took up arms.
Battle is in your blood. Sometimes you catch
yourself reflexively performing the basic
fighting exercises you learned as a youth.
Eventually, you put that training to use on the
battlefield, protecting the realm by waging war
and studying the strategies of goblinoid
generals.
Goblins for the win!
I'll add more stuff but I'm about to hop into a game, but so far it overall looks good just so many finicky and cringe bits.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Big Header that says "Sample Backgrounds", followed by the first sentence that says, "Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds", and people are still like, "Why do all Guards speak Dwarvish?"
Presentation isn't clumsy, people just need to read what is presented to them...
I like that Common Sign Language is included in the Standard Language list.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!