It seems like they are nerfing critical hits, too. They are only applicable to weapon or unarmed strikes, and only roll the damage die for the weapon or unarmed strike. So no spell crits and no sneak attack massive crit damage.
It seems like they are nerfing critical hits, too. They are only applicable to weapon or unarmed strikes, and only roll the damage die for the weapon or unarmed strike. So no spell crits and no sneak attack massive crit damage.
Yeah, I am not liking the critical hit rules they are testing here. It is a very slight buff to fighters, but a big nerf to Rogue sneak attacks, Paladin smites, Ranger Hunters Mark, and Battle Master maneuvers.... so not really even a slight buff to fighters...
I am a pretty big fan to the Race, Background and Feat redesign though. Especially the shift to making custom backgrounds (with feats) the default with very clear guidance on how it is done.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was a bit perplexed by the Half-Orc and Half-Elf not being included since they've been around forever, but the guidelines for mixed-race characters is certainly a more streamlined way to handle them.
I'm intrigued by the idea of tagging spells as arcane/divine/primal, and giving classes rules for accessing spells of each type, rather than an explicit list for each class. It will definitely make it easier to add both new spells and new classes/subclasses/feats with spellcasting abilities to the game.
I don't think I like the new rules for breaking a grapple. I don't like the idea of an Escape DC, I much prefer it as a contested roll. Plus, using Saving Throws instead of skill checks imposes more limits on who would be good at grappling or escaping. Whereas if they're skill-based, you can choose to be trained/expert in Athletics or Acrobatics(possibly because you specifically want to be good at grappling or escaping a grapple). Plus, abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks no longer affect grappling.
I love the attempt to make Inspiration something that gets used more often. I like that it's easier to obtain outside of the DM's whim, and I like being able to share your second one rather than have it go to waste. I like the idea of discourage Inspiration hoarding by having it go away at the end of a Long Rest, though that might be a little too harsh. I'm not sure about expanding the nat1/nat20 auto-fail/success to all d20 Tests, but I do understand the reasoning that a lot of groups do it that way anyway.
I like some of the feat changes, especially the Initiative Swap ability in the Alert feat, that's a nifty tactical option. But man, Lucky getting PB/Long Rest uses? That's pretty crazypants.
I'm disappointed with the rules for half-races. Pick a race and pretend you're half something else? That's just flavoring and we could already do that.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I'm disappointed with the rules for half-races. Pick a race and pretend you're half something else? That's just flavoring and we could already do that.
Agreed, I wish these were more crunchy, especially if Half-Elf and Half-Orc are now being discontinued. I like the idea of hybrids in concept, especially for homebrew settings, but right now the rules for them are so barebones in this iteration of the playtest.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
Yes, the Custom Background is the default method so there isn't a "best for build" Background other than the one that is completely customizable.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
And that's where I get confused by their choice. They've made it so easy to let players ignore the fixed bonuses and just wildcard them, why did they even try bringing back fixed ability bonuses in the first place?
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
And that's where I get confused by their choice. They've made it so easy to let players ignore the fixed bonuses and just wildcard them, why did they even try bringing back fixed ability bonuses in the first place?
They didn't bring back fixed ability bonuses, they provide examples of possible backgrounds. Just so happens that you can use the examples as is if you want.
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
And that's where I get confused by their choice. They've made it so easy to let players ignore the fixed bonuses and just wildcard them, why did they even try bringing back fixed ability bonuses in the first place?
I see, I hadn't noticed that it explicitly says you can move around the ability scores, that does solve my problem.
As for why, that is basically what lots of folks were asking for with the races. A default for how a typical member of race is, but note that you can move it around how you like. So, seems like they're actually people what they wanted.
Though at some point, it seems like, why attach it to anything? Just say you get a +2/+1 or 1/1/1 at char gen, and don't worry about if it came from a race or a background or wherever.
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail. But with these rules, you kind of have to say "No, you can't do that" to avoid someone jumping a 50 ft chasm in a single bound, or other such 'impossible' feats because now there's always a 5% chance they'll succeed. Unless I've read the rules wrong, of course.
I also am not sure how to feel about removing critical hits from spells. One the one hand, most spells were saving throws anyway, so it doesn't matter as much and it helps provide some bonus for martials; one the other hand spells with spell attack rolls were already kinda bad in comparison to saving throw spells, so removing their ability to crit makes them even worse. Are they removing Spell Attack rolls from the game entirely?
I don't think I like the new rules for breaking a grapple. I don't like the idea of an Escape DC, I much prefer it as a contested roll. Plus, using Saving Throws instead of skill checks imposes more limits on who would be good at grappling or escaping. Whereas if they're skill-based, you can choose to be trained/expert in Athletics or Acrobatics(possibly because you specifically want to be good at grappling or escaping a grapple). Plus, abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks no longer affect grappling.
The new rules state that attack rolls, skill checks and saving throws are all considered d20 Tests, and anything that affects one of the items listed there affects all of them. So abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks would instead give advantage/disadvantage on all d20 Tests. For clarity, (edit: strike out of incorrect interpretation) abilities that give advantage/disadvantage or other bonuses to specific skill checks (e.g. You gain advantage on Athletics checks) would still only apply to the specified skills. That said, I also think I prefer it as a contested roll.
As for a mix of racial + background defining ability score increases, I would be inclined to have a +1 from race, but with options for which attributes it could be applied to. Using your example of Dwarves, they tend to be hardy (CON) and strong (STR), but some dwarves are also shrewd businessmen (WIS), so you could add a plus 1 to any of those 3 ability scores. Your other +2 comes from your background, and you apply those +2 to two different ability scores. That gives the same effect as the +2/+1 if you choose the same ability score for the race and one of the background selections, or +1/+1/+1 if you don't. However, I personally think it is better to have the ASI tied to background and have the racial features exemplify the racial ancestral traits in some other way, like the Dwarven resistance to poison.
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail.
But you wouldn't do that. If there was no chance of success, you wouldn't call for a roll. Similarly, if there was no chance of failure, you wouldn't call for a roll (Opening a door, go ahead and open it, no roll required. Opening a door that is stuck, make a str check. Opening a door that has been welded shut, and sealed by ancient runes of power, you can't, no roll required.) Rolls are only supposed to be when there is a chance for success or failure.
I'm happy to see that they actually had a celestial equivalent to the tiefling right from the beginning this time, and the animal head thing actually makes it stand out more than the aasimar does. And seeing the default tiefling have a choice between devils, demons, and chthonic fiends (glad to finally have a group name for all those fiends that don't neatly fall into the devil, demon, and yugoloth categories, though yugoloths are included as chthonic) for their lineage is something I didn't even know I wanted.
I'm also glad that they buffed some of the feats that needed it.
Whoa. there's a lot.
Character generation asi's move from race to background.
All backgrounds get a feat.
Races go back to having life spans and general sizes.
Elves are just on race, and you choose a lineage.
Looks like spell lists are getting simplified.
Paladins are explicitly divine
Rolling a 1 or 20 on a skill check will mean an auto fail or success.
It's so much stuff.
It seems like they are nerfing critical hits, too. They are only applicable to weapon or unarmed strikes, and only roll the damage die for the weapon or unarmed strike. So no spell crits and no sneak attack massive crit damage.
Yeah, I am not liking the critical hit rules they are testing here. It is a very slight buff to fighters, but a big nerf to Rogue sneak attacks, Paladin smites, Ranger Hunters Mark, and Battle Master maneuvers.... so not really even a slight buff to fighters...
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am a pretty big fan to the Race, Background and Feat redesign though. Especially the shift to making custom backgrounds (with feats) the default with very clear guidance on how it is done.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I completely agree. The rules make it seem like they’re trying to make characters really unique from level 1
I like the idea of your background affecting your ability scores, but WotC needs to make up their mind whether they want bonuses to be fixed or wildcarded. Because with these playtest rules we're kinda back to what Tasha's offered where the bonuses were technically defined but if you want to change them just change them. I'm also one who liked the original idea that different races had natural inclinations when it came to ability scores. Halflings tended to be nimble, Dwarves tended to he hardy, etc. I'd like to see a mix of defined and wildcarded bonuses based on your race & background choices, though I'm not sure what the best way to structure it would be.
I was a bit perplexed by the Half-Orc and Half-Elf not being included since they've been around forever, but the guidelines for mixed-race characters is certainly a more streamlined way to handle them.
I'm intrigued by the idea of tagging spells as arcane/divine/primal, and giving classes rules for accessing spells of each type, rather than an explicit list for each class. It will definitely make it easier to add both new spells and new classes/subclasses/feats with spellcasting abilities to the game.
I don't think I like the new rules for breaking a grapple. I don't like the idea of an Escape DC, I much prefer it as a contested roll. Plus, using Saving Throws instead of skill checks imposes more limits on who would be good at grappling or escaping. Whereas if they're skill-based, you can choose to be trained/expert in Athletics or Acrobatics(possibly because you specifically want to be good at grappling or escaping a grapple). Plus, abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks no longer affect grappling.
I love the attempt to make Inspiration something that gets used more often. I like that it's easier to obtain outside of the DM's whim, and I like being able to share your second one rather than have it go to waste. I like the idea of discourage Inspiration hoarding by having it go away at the end of a Long Rest, though that might be a little too harsh. I'm not sure about expanding the nat1/nat20 auto-fail/success to all d20 Tests, but I do understand the reasoning that a lot of groups do it that way anyway.
I like some of the feat changes, especially the Initiative Swap ability in the Alert feat, that's a nifty tactical option. But man, Lucky getting PB/Long Rest uses? That's pretty crazypants.
I'm disappointed with the rules for half-races. Pick a race and pretend you're half something else? That's just flavoring and we could already do that.
I was thinking something like this. I personally like getting rid of the fixed racial bonuses for a lot of reasons. But adding them back in, ugh, instead of having a race that is "optimal" for a class and makes people feel like they have to take it, now you have a background that is. I know not everyone will take it, much like people enjoyed playing a race that was against type. It just seems like the freedom they gave by making the racial bonuses floating is now gone.
Honestly, maybe the easy way is to just make it class based. You're a wizard, you get a +2 to int, and a +1 to stick somewhere else. And you can put that +1 wherever. maybe you were a wizard who spent all their free time in the gym, so you add it to str, for example.
Agreed, I wish these were more crunchy, especially if Half-Elf and Half-Orc are now being discontinued. I like the idea of hybrids in concept, especially for homebrew settings, but right now the rules for them are so barebones in this iteration of the playtest.
I would also have this issue, but don't they explicitly mention custom backgrounds being a thing? They even list the rules for the ability score increases when making a custom background. That kind of negates my issue with there being an "optimal" background.
Yes, the Custom Background is the default method so there isn't a "best for build" Background other than the one that is completely customizable.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
And that's where I get confused by their choice. They've made it so easy to let players ignore the fixed bonuses and just wildcard them, why did they even try bringing back fixed ability bonuses in the first place?
Yeah, that's a fair point(s) re; background ASI's, it's an odd choice.
They didn't bring back fixed ability bonuses, they provide examples of possible backgrounds. Just so happens that you can use the examples as is if you want.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I see, I hadn't noticed that it explicitly says you can move around the ability scores, that does solve my problem.
As for why, that is basically what lots of folks were asking for with the races. A default for how a typical member of race is, but note that you can move it around how you like. So, seems like they're actually people what they wanted.
Though at some point, it seems like, why attach it to anything? Just say you get a +2/+1 or 1/1/1 at char gen, and don't worry about if it came from a race or a background or wherever.
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about expanding critical success to skill checks. If you were a DM and someone asked to attempt something ridiculous, you could give them a roll and just set the DC stupidly high so they'd always fail. But with these rules, you kind of have to say "No, you can't do that" to avoid someone jumping a 50 ft chasm in a single bound, or other such 'impossible' feats because now there's always a 5% chance they'll succeed. Unless I've read the rules wrong, of course.
I also am not sure how to feel about removing critical hits from spells. One the one hand, most spells were saving throws anyway, so it doesn't matter as much and it helps provide some bonus for martials; one the other hand spells with spell attack rolls were already kinda bad in comparison to saving throw spells, so removing their ability to crit makes them even worse. Are they removing Spell Attack rolls from the game entirely?
The new rules state that attack rolls, skill checks and saving throws are all considered d20 Tests, and anything that affects one of the items listed there affects all of them. So abilities that give advantage/disadvantage on ability checks would instead give advantage/disadvantage on all d20 Tests. For clarity,(edit: strike out of incorrect interpretation) abilities that give advantage/disadvantage or other bonuses to specific skill checks (e.g. You gain advantage on Athletics checks) would still only apply to the specified skills. That said, I also think I prefer it as a contested roll.As for a mix of racial + background defining ability score increases, I would be inclined to have a +1 from race, but with options for which attributes it could be applied to. Using your example of Dwarves, they tend to be hardy (CON) and strong (STR), but some dwarves are also shrewd businessmen (WIS), so you could add a plus 1 to any of those 3 ability scores. Your other +2 comes from your background, and you apply those +2 to two different ability scores. That gives the same effect as the +2/+1 if you choose the same ability score for the race and one of the background selections, or +1/+1/+1 if you don't. However, I personally think it is better to have the ASI tied to background and have the racial features exemplify the racial ancestral traits in some other way, like the Dwarven resistance to poison.
But you wouldn't do that. If there was no chance of success, you wouldn't call for a roll. Similarly, if there was no chance of failure, you wouldn't call for a roll (Opening a door, go ahead and open it, no roll required. Opening a door that is stuck, make a str check. Opening a door that has been welded shut, and sealed by ancient runes of power, you can't, no roll required.) Rolls are only supposed to be when there is a chance for success or failure.
I'd like to see every character get 3 +1s - one from race, one from class, and one from background.
I'm happy to see that they actually had a celestial equivalent to the tiefling right from the beginning this time, and the animal head thing actually makes it stand out more than the aasimar does. And seeing the default tiefling have a choice between devils, demons, and chthonic fiends (glad to finally have a group name for all those fiends that don't neatly fall into the devil, demon, and yugoloth categories, though yugoloths are included as chthonic) for their lineage is something I didn't even know I wanted.
I'm also glad that they buffed some of the feats that needed it.