Me too, except for humans now getting 2 feats at level 1 by default along with free inspiration once a day, and Haflings getting a lucky for free by default along with a second feat.
Halflings were already Lucky so no change there.
Halfling luck allowed them to reroll ones, nothing else. Now they get a minimum of 2 free advantage rolls a day, more at higher levels, plus an extra feat.
I would rather have the unlimited rerolls.
Plus the new crit rules nerf most of the classes, so nat 20s don't mean much anymore in combat. Holy crap do they mean something out of combat, but yeah, I feel that excitement over rolling one won't really be there anymore outside of fighters, barbarians, paladins, and monks.
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?
Success doesn't have to mean they make the jump; it could mean they don't die in the attempt or suffer whatever reasonable consequences they could expect under normal circumstances.
I've been ignoring Crit rules since I've started DM'ing. I did however purchase the critical hit and critical fail decks from Nordgamesllc.com. they create a powerful feeling whenever anything critically does anything.
Considering Humans, Tiefling and Ardlings can all choose Medium or Small, I certainly hope they're planning to add reasons why being Small might be advantageous. By the current 5e rules, being Small is almost universally a bad thing, giving Disadvantage with Heavy weapons and making you worse at grappling and shoving. Right now the only benefit to being Small comes from being able to fit in a space that might be a squeeze for Medium characters, which is situational at best. Otherwise, only benefit I can think of is being about to use Medium creatures as a mount.
I'm also not too keen on Humans being Small, as that's just a halfling. Are young children becoming grizzled adventurers now? A Human counting as Small while a Dwarf is still Medium feels so bizarre to me.
If you are not a melee fighter, then being small has no disadvantages - you aren't going to be grappling, shoving or using heavy weapons. So you gain the advantage of being able to fit in small spaces, and you can add on the advantage of qualifying for the Squat Nimbleness feat if that is something fitting for your character.
As far as why these options were added to the races you mentioned but not to dwarves is because dwarves are described as having a bulky frame. They are medium sized not because of their height, but because of the bulk of their skeletal structure. Size isn't defined by height alone, weight and girth are also factors. A human that is "small" is 2-4 feet tall, which means that they are either very young (as you suggested), which could be fitting for a campaign that younger kids are playing in, OR they are humans with the real-world condition of dwarfism, like Peter Dinklage, The same can be said for the other races that had this option added. A dwarf with dwarfism would be a bit shorter (maybe 2-4 feet tall like the short human), but would still have the larger frame and so would still be a "medium" size creature.
For what its worth, it is also possible for characters to be afflicted with some kind of magic that altered their height and weight (see the Wild Magic table for sorcerers - similar effects exist in the Feywild, the Underdark, and elsewhere). This is the only situation where it might also apply to Dwarves and the other races that did not have the option to be small added, but due to the nature of the alterations caused by this kind of magic and the potentially game-breaking effect that the inverse of this would have (orcs/goliaths having grown to large size, halflings to tiny size, etc.), this would probably have to be approved by a DM, which is why it is not available as a default option, but it could be an option at your table if the DM allows it.
Secondly, I'm curious if they're planning to remove Somatic and Verbal components, or otherwise combine them into a singular 'obvious spell' tag or something. The inclusion of Common Sign Language on the list of standard languages brings up the awkward question of whether or not sign language would count as a Verbal component, and if not, why not? WotC is bound to get accused of ableism with that one.
Verbal components are supposed to be spoken loudly and clearly with a specific inflection and tempo, so translating that into sign language means very large and wide movements that are going to be very obvious to anyone seeing them. You would need to incorporate the Somatic component into the signed Verbal component to make it feasible to cast spells that require both components, but it is reasonable enough to assume that the common sign language is perhaps based on the arcane language and so the somatic components are already similar to the movements used to sign the verbal component.
It would create disparity with spoken spellcasting in that the Silence spell would have no effect and casting it from the shadows would make it nearly impossible for anyone to notice you were doing it, UNLESS it is specified that spellcasting using sign language requires loud clapping or snapping or some other noise-producing movements as part of it, thus the spell fails if you aren't able to produce those sounds.
Seems like a simple enough explanation, so I would allow it and that's how I would approach it unless an official explanation is given.
With just the races and background features, you could just play a game with just them, characters are already more powerful and flexible than older editions of rpgs. I do have complaints about that. but it does raise the question, could we have an option to start play at level 0, with no class? There’s magic and warrior feats that make you comparable in capability and flexibility to old school characters. Of course the rules don’t exist in a vacuum, but level one characters look so complex to the point of frustrating. I mean house rules are always there, sure, but official comment on this would be cool.
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.
Not necessarily, there's the old example of a bard demanding the king hand over his claim to the throne and rolling a nat 20. Should that work? Absolutely not, but as the DM you can use the nat 20 as an excuse to not have the arrested for attempted sedition. Under the new rules the bard is the king now.
Yes, necessarily. No rolls should be made unless the DM calls for it - PERIOD. If the bard says they want to demand the king hand over his claim to the throne, the DM can just say "The king will not do that" and the player does not make a roll at all. If you are a DM of the mentality that the players "can certainly try" whatever they want, then you let them roll and the best they can hope for is the king laughing in their face and not throwing them in prison for even suggesting it.
You have clearly missed a critical component in the new rules, though. The DM need only decide that the DC to convince the king to give up their throne is over 30, which it should be in all but the most exceptional of circumstances (e.g. the king doesn't want to be king anyways). By the new rules, the bard doesn't even get to make a roll in this case.
See the second paragraph under D20 Test on page 18.
Considering Humans, Tiefling and Ardlings can all choose Medium or Small, I certainly hope they're planning to add reasons why being Small might be advantageous. By the current 5e rules, being Small is almost universally a bad thing, giving Disadvantage with Heavy weapons and making you worse at grappling and shoving. Right now the only benefit to being Small comes from being able to fit in a space that might be a squeeze for Medium characters, which is situational at best. Otherwise, only benefit I can think of is being about to use Medium creatures as a mount.
I'm also not too keen on Humans being Small, as that's just a halfling. Are young children becoming grizzled adventurers now? A Human counting as Small while a Dwarf is still Medium feels so bizarre to me.
If you are not a melee fighter, then being small has no disadvantages - you aren't going to be grappling, shoving or using heavy weapons. So you gain the advantage of being able to fit in small spaces, and you can add on the advantage of qualifying for the Squat Nimbleness feat if that is something fitting for your character.
As far as why these options were added to the races you mentioned but not to dwarves is because dwarves are described as having a bulky frame. They are medium sized not because of their height, but because of the bulk of their skeletal structure. Size isn't defined by height alone, weight and girth are also factors. A human that is "small" is 2-4 feet tall, which means that they are either very young (as you suggested), which could be fitting for a campaign that younger kids are playing in, OR they are humans with the real-world condition of dwarfism, like Peter Dinklage, The same can be said for the other races that had this option added. A dwarf with dwarfism would be a bit shorter (maybe 2-4 feet tall like the short human), but would still have the larger frame and so would still be a "medium" size creature.
For what its worth, it is also possible for characters to be afflicted with some kind of magic that altered their height and weight (see the Wild Magic table for sorcerers - similar effects exist in the Feywild, the Underdark, and elsewhere). This is the only situation where it might also apply to Dwarves and the other races that did not have the option to be small added, but due to the nature of the alterations caused by this kind of magic and the potentially game-breaking effect that the inverse of this would have (orcs/goliaths having grown to large size, halflings to tiny size, etc.), this would probably have to be approved by a DM, which is why it is not available as a default option, but it could be an option at your table if the DM allows it.
I doubt Squat Nimbleness is sticking around, since a big reason it exists is to eliminate the 5 foot penalty that dwarves, halflings and gnomes were given in the PHB but has since been removed from all small races (including the ones in the new document). As for the Small casters, they may not want to Grapple or Shove, but they won't have a choice if they get Grappled or Shoved by an opponent, and by choosing to be small, you've made that prospect easier for the enemy. A Large creature could grapple a Small character and would not be Slowed as they moved, and the Small character would not be able to Shove them to break the grapple. I'm hoping they add more reasons to be Small in other rules, like maybe bringing back the Size bonus to AC or something.
As for the reasons for Humans getting to be small, that feels...weird. It opens a can of worms that I think ends up with every race being optionally Small. If they are saying its children going adventuring, where are all the Elf and Dwarf children adventurers? If its for representation reasons, are they suggesting that no Orcs or Dragonborns have Peter Dinklage's condition, or that the Peter Dinklages' of the world wouldn't want to play as an Elf that looks like them?
With the more unique races, I get that there may be variant subraces of Tieflings or Tortles or Owlets or whatever that are smaller than the rest, and it makes more sense to just make that race able to be Small or Medium than to create a new race just to satisfy the need for tiny turtles. But when you add it to Humans, it begs the question why it isn't available for everything. If Humans get it, everybody should get it.
Secondly, I'm curious if they're planning to remove Somatic and Verbal components, or otherwise combine them into a singular 'obvious spell' tag or something. The inclusion of Common Sign Language on the list of standard languages brings up the awkward question of whether or not sign language would count as a Verbal component, and if not, why not? WotC is bound to get accused of ableism with that one.
Verbal components are supposed to be spoken loudly and clearly with a specific inflection and tempo, so translating that into sign language means very large and wide movements that are going to be very obvious to anyone seeing them. You would need to incorporate the Somatic component into the signed Verbal component to make it feasible to cast spells that require both components, but it is reasonable enough to assume that the common sign language is perhaps based on the arcane language and so the somatic components are already similar to the movements used to sign the verbal component.
It would create disparity with spoken spellcasting in that the Silence spell would have no effect and casting it from the shadows would make it nearly impossible for anyone to notice you were doing it, UNLESS it is specified that spellcasting using sign language requires loud clapping or snapping or some other noise-producing movements as part of it, thus the spell fails if you aren't able to produce those sounds.
Seems like a simple enough explanation, so I would allow it and that's how I would approach it unless an official explanation is given.
Clapping/snapping is a reasonable way to handle it, but I actually think I'd prefer if they merged Somatic/Verbal into a single 'obvious' tag of some kind, clarifying that certain spells are obvious when they are cast and others are not. For the most part, whether a spell is Verbal, Somatic or both feels pretty arbitrarily defined at the moment anyway.
With just the races and background features, you could just play a game with just them, characters are already more powerful and flexible than older editions of rpgs. I do have complaints about that. but it does raise the question, could we have an option to start play at level 0, with no class? There’s magic and warrior feats that make you comparable in capability and flexibility to old school characters. Of course the rules don’t exist in a vacuum, but level one characters look so complex to the point of frustrating. I mean house rules are always there, sure, but official comment on this would be cool.
I ran a homebrew survival campaign where the players started out as commoners with only their racial and background features added to the stat block. In the first chapter of the campaign, they came across different things that they could do to improve their skills. The first few milestones just gave them ability score increases based on what training and activities they engaged in, and once they had the stats for it, they were converted to one of the 3 sidekick classes at level 1 (the stat increases were predetermined and went specifically toward what was needed for the class).
A few more milestones later (the player now choosing where to distribute the ASI they given) and they were converted to one of the primary classes that is related to the sidekick class they had. They would eventually get converted to a full class related to their sidekick class, but the campaign fizzled out due to conflicting schedules and such before we got that far.
My thoughts are now that they have introduced the new variants of races like gem Dragonborn I feel they should be included too. Also the crit success I feel should apply to castors but not skill check only attacks and let dms home rule if they want it. Also noticed the lack of half races. As far as grappling contested is what we are used to but it makes sense the other way too. I personally prefer the old way lucky feat works as far as uses as it’s uniform and easy to remember. The ability based on background is disliked by my table when we discussed it .as for language on background I feel it should be a choice of language so that it makes more sense for each individual character Or region they come from. That all I’ve noticed with my group so far more comments may come later.
I'm surprised they're buffing the Lucky feat. It was already a feat most of my players took, because it is so useful at all times, for all characters. This will make players less concerned about their actions. A 13th level fighter could use action surge to make 6 attacks, 5 of which with advantage, on the same turn. This can destroy a high level enemy or multiple medium level threats.
I would be ok with 1 luck point that you recover on a short or long rest, or at least limiting the use of 1 luck point per round.
There is a slight nerf to lucky in that you can't use it on any roll you already have advantage on (or an opponent has disadvantage on). Before you could essentially roll 3 dice, here it clearly says it gives you advantage and once you already have that....
I’m vary vary disappointed in the half elf/orc solution (cop out) these are iconic elements of the game and this reeks of the same kind of decision making that lead to second edition. Humans, Orcs and Elves are not the same as there mixed race descendants! The hand waving is a poor substitute for good design, I was by no means a fan of 4th Edition but it did do a good job of giving the Half Orc a unique racial profile. Please recognize that this is a game, not a plot to degrade or defame anyone so hopefully I haven’t offended any Orcs/ Elves or there descendants.
Secondly, I'm curious if they're planning to remove Somatic and Verbal components, or otherwise combine them into a singular 'obvious spell' tag or something. The inclusion of Common Sign Language on the list of standard languages brings up the awkward question of whether or not sign language would count as a Verbal component, and if not, why not? WotC is bound to get accused of ableism with that one.
Verbal components are supposed to be spoken loudly and clearly with a specific inflection and tempo, so translating that into sign language means very large and wide movements that are going to be very obvious to anyone seeing them. You would need to incorporate the Somatic component into the signed Verbal component to make it feasible to cast spells that require both components, but it is reasonable enough to assume that the common sign language is perhaps based on the arcane language and so the somatic components are already similar to the movements used to sign the verbal component.
It would create disparity with spoken spellcasting in that the Silence spell would have no effect and casting it from the shadows would make it nearly impossible for anyone to notice you were doing it, UNLESS it is specified that spellcasting using sign language requires loud clapping or snapping or some other noise-producing movements as part of it, thus the spell fails if you aren't able to produce those sounds.
Seems like a simple enough explanation, so I would allow it and that's how I would approach it unless an official explanation is given.
Clapping/snapping is a reasonable way to handle it, but I actually think I'd prefer if they merged Somatic/Verbal into a single 'obvious' tag of some kind, clarifying that certain spells are obvious when they are cast and others are not. For the most part, whether a spell is Verbal, Somatic or both feels pretty arbitrarily defined at the moment anyway.
The distinction between the two is simply the difference between noticeable sounds (Verbal) and noticeable movements (Somatic). They are not arbitrarily defined - if you look at the list of spells that use one but not the other, you'll notice that there are common themes among them.
If you are casting a spell with Somatic components but no Verbal components and you are hidden, then nobody is going to notice you doing it. There aren't many spells that are Somatic only, but most of them involve controlling the elements, with a few spells that target the minds of other creatures with illusions and psychic damage.
Spells with Verbal components but no Somatic components can be cast even if you are unable to use your arms or your hands are full. The list of spells in this category is nearly double that of the Somatic only spells. These typically include spells that accompany a weapon attack like smites and booming blade, as well as a lot of teleportation spells that might be used to escape a grapple or restraints, and pretty much any spell that has "Word" in the title or the spell description involves you speaking something as part of the effect (e.g. Command, Dissonant Whispers, etc.), but not quite all of them as some require you to touch the target (a Somatic component) or have a material component (like Wish).
There are a ton of spells that require both Verbal and Somatic components, so it would be more difficult to filter through that to find commonalities and distinctions from those that only require a single component.
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.
Not necessarily, there's the old example of a bard demanding the king hand over his claim to the throne and rolling a nat 20. Should that work? Absolutely not, but as the DM you can use the nat 20 as an excuse to not have the arrested for attempted sedition. Under the new rules the bard is the king now.
Yes, necessarily. No rolls should be made unless the DM calls for it - PERIOD. If the bard says they want to demand the king hand over his claim to the throne, the DM can just say "The king will not do that" and the player does not make a roll at all. If you are
You have clearly missed a critical component in the new rules, though. The DM need only decide that the DC to convince the king to give up their throne is over 30, which it should be in all but the most exceptional of circumstances (e.g. the king doesn't want to be king anyways). By the new rules, the bard doesn't even get to make a roll in this case.
See the second paragraph under D20 Test on page 18.
With each patch note like that I feel that wizards of the coast are making races less unique. Maybe the excuse is people making builds that tell you "pick this to get something-something" and Wotc thought there would be less for roleplay. But still there are races that are optimal in their way of choosing class and there are some who have less choice like goliaths and pure ocs usually being barbarian and fighters.
Also if that will come out there will be "flavoring" like "I want to play as gorilla" or something.
I think all the races & background stuff is pretty good, however some of the new rules really hit me the wrong way.
Nat 1s & 20s on ability checks: Fine. Natural 20 + modifiers are usually enough to pass any check I'd reasonably throw at players anyways.
The auto-fail against anything DC 30 is not thought-out. These rules are meant to work with 5E, and if that's so, they need to prepare for AC 30+ & rangers with +27 to stealth. However, I highly doubt this is staying. My guess is it'll be replaced with a much more fitting "The DM may decide some ability checks are automatic fails depending on circumstances" or something like that.
Critical hits, I feel like is a seriously unnecessary nerf. Rogues get shafted hard by this in particular, no extra attack, so less likely to get that extra inspiration, and their sneak attack isn't even doubled so what's the point? Fighters can still double all their damage if they're lucky enough, rogues get an extra like 4 points of damage. Sneak Attack is not powerful enough to warrant nerfing.
Paladins too but they're fine. Overall, it's a nice martial buff that fighters get access to free inspirations and stuff though. I just wish they kept the normal crit damage rules on top of that. Also, monsters can't crit anymore, which is... I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Grappling got a nerf. Yes, the disadvantage to attack others is a great taunt and all, but escaping is free in terms of action-economy, and it's a STR or DEX save. That's really bad. Almost everything has either a good DEX, or a good STR. Worse still, failing the save might be better because that way they and all their allies get advantage against the grappler. I think grappling was in a perfectly fine place before and I don't see the need for this change.
spell lists I don't think we know enough to properly judge them considering classes (or at least subclasses) seem to be getting their own special lists in addition to these ones.
Also why did they revert Fizban's dragonborn changes? I mean, 1d10 + level is better than PHB, but still. At the very least just keep the dragon's breath and then have everything else be generic.
edit: I'd also like to see stealth rules, I feel like it's one of the things people point to show how bad the PHB is organized, so it'd be nice to have that all cleared up.
edit from 2 days later, I misread grappling rules, enemies only have advantage on the grappler for attacks of opportunity which isn't as bad. Grapples are easier to do but easier to break out of. Harder to specialize in than before (more ways to increase Athletics than Save DC) but I assume they'll probably rework the grappler feat for that purpose.
Abilities: I like the idea that you're not pigeonholed into playing certain races because they have certain ability scores attached to them. I like the idea that they are going with race attributes and feats. I always hated how everyone plays the same races with the same classes because of the Min/Max dilemma.
Size: I do feel that there needs to be a different set of rules for sizes though. If you're small, you should not necessarily have some of the same options such as strength as a Medium or Large character. There should also be an encumbrance rule difference between sizes as well. A halfling's breastplate would be half the size and half the weight as someone who is Medium and so forth.
Darkvision: Needs to be peeled back and given only to races that would logically have it because of their time in the underdark, ect. It's ok to peel back to 30 ft. or 45 ft. with some races or half-races. Light objects like torches and lanterns need to be useful again. It makes for better gameplay too. :)
Multi-classing: Out of control. Needs peeled way back with more caps and parameters to stop the Min/Max dilemma. Some of my ideas would be to not allow someone to Multiclass more than once and bring in more controlled sub-class options instead. I'm so tired of the Warlock (sigh) Bring back Alignment requirements as well to create more stable, sensible characters. Cherry picking needs to go away.
Alignment: Make alignment a thing with certain classes. It's very annoying to try and explain how a Warlock with a pact to a Demon from the Shadow realm can also be praying to a god of light and be receiving holy and righteous blessings from on high at the same time. This should not be possible.
Digital Overview: All the changes they come up with need to have the fact that a lot of the player base is moving online and digitally in mind. Many of the mechanics are built more from a theatre of the mind or RPG mindset and not a digital map or board viewpoint. These changes need to be compatible with both. My groups are now completely moved over to Foundry Vtt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Plus the new crit rules nerf most of the classes, so nat 20s don't mean much anymore in combat. Holy crap do they mean something out of combat, but yeah, I feel that excitement over rolling one won't really be there anymore outside of fighters, barbarians, paladins, and monks.
Not the way the new ruling is worded.
I've been ignoring Crit rules since I've started DM'ing. I did however purchase the critical hit and critical fail decks from Nordgamesllc.com. they create a powerful feeling whenever anything critically does anything.
If you are not a melee fighter, then being small has no disadvantages - you aren't going to be grappling, shoving or using heavy weapons. So you gain the advantage of being able to fit in small spaces, and you can add on the advantage of qualifying for the Squat Nimbleness feat if that is something fitting for your character.
As far as why these options were added to the races you mentioned but not to dwarves is because dwarves are described as having a bulky frame. They are medium sized not because of their height, but because of the bulk of their skeletal structure. Size isn't defined by height alone, weight and girth are also factors. A human that is "small" is 2-4 feet tall, which means that they are either very young (as you suggested), which could be fitting for a campaign that younger kids are playing in, OR they are humans with the real-world condition of dwarfism, like Peter Dinklage, The same can be said for the other races that had this option added. A dwarf with dwarfism would be a bit shorter (maybe 2-4 feet tall like the short human), but would still have the larger frame and so would still be a "medium" size creature.
For what its worth, it is also possible for characters to be afflicted with some kind of magic that altered their height and weight (see the Wild Magic table for sorcerers - similar effects exist in the Feywild, the Underdark, and elsewhere). This is the only situation where it might also apply to Dwarves and the other races that did not have the option to be small added, but due to the nature of the alterations caused by this kind of magic and the potentially game-breaking effect that the inverse of this would have (orcs/goliaths having grown to large size, halflings to tiny size, etc.), this would probably have to be approved by a DM, which is why it is not available as a default option, but it could be an option at your table if the DM allows it.
Verbal components are supposed to be spoken loudly and clearly with a specific inflection and tempo, so translating that into sign language means very large and wide movements that are going to be very obvious to anyone seeing them. You would need to incorporate the Somatic component into the signed Verbal component to make it feasible to cast spells that require both components, but it is reasonable enough to assume that the common sign language is perhaps based on the arcane language and so the somatic components are already similar to the movements used to sign the verbal component.
It would create disparity with spoken spellcasting in that the Silence spell would have no effect and casting it from the shadows would make it nearly impossible for anyone to notice you were doing it, UNLESS it is specified that spellcasting using sign language requires loud clapping or snapping or some other noise-producing movements as part of it, thus the spell fails if you aren't able to produce those sounds.
Seems like a simple enough explanation, so I would allow it and that's how I would approach it unless an official explanation is given.
With just the races and background features, you could just play a game with just them, characters are already more powerful and flexible than older editions of rpgs. I do have complaints about that. but it does raise the question, could we have an option to start play at level 0, with no class? There’s magic and warrior feats that make you comparable in capability and flexibility to old school characters. Of course the rules don’t exist in a vacuum, but level one characters look so complex to the point of frustrating. I mean house rules are always there, sure, but official comment on this would be cool.
Yes, necessarily. No rolls should be made unless the DM calls for it - PERIOD. If the bard says they want to demand the king hand over his claim to the throne, the DM can just say "The king will not do that" and the player does not make a roll at all. If you are a DM of the mentality that the players "can certainly try" whatever they want, then you let them roll and the best they can hope for is the king laughing in their face and not throwing them in prison for even suggesting it.
You have clearly missed a critical component in the new rules, though. The DM need only decide that the DC to convince the king to give up their throne is over 30, which it should be in all but the most exceptional of circumstances (e.g. the king doesn't want to be king anyways). By the new rules, the bard doesn't even get to make a roll in this case.
See the second paragraph under D20 Test on page 18.
Yea i think with some fine tuning one dnd is going to be awesome! I’m looking forward to it
I doubt Squat Nimbleness is sticking around, since a big reason it exists is to eliminate the 5 foot penalty that dwarves, halflings and gnomes were given in the PHB but has since been removed from all small races (including the ones in the new document). As for the Small casters, they may not want to Grapple or Shove, but they won't have a choice if they get Grappled or Shoved by an opponent, and by choosing to be small, you've made that prospect easier for the enemy. A Large creature could grapple a Small character and would not be Slowed as they moved, and the Small character would not be able to Shove them to break the grapple. I'm hoping they add more reasons to be Small in other rules, like maybe bringing back the Size bonus to AC or something.
As for the reasons for Humans getting to be small, that feels...weird. It opens a can of worms that I think ends up with every race being optionally Small. If they are saying its children going adventuring, where are all the Elf and Dwarf children adventurers? If its for representation reasons, are they suggesting that no Orcs or Dragonborns have Peter Dinklage's condition, or that the Peter Dinklages' of the world wouldn't want to play as an Elf that looks like them?
With the more unique races, I get that there may be variant subraces of Tieflings or Tortles or Owlets or whatever that are smaller than the rest, and it makes more sense to just make that race able to be Small or Medium than to create a new race just to satisfy the need for tiny turtles. But when you add it to Humans, it begs the question why it isn't available for everything. If Humans get it, everybody should get it.
Clapping/snapping is a reasonable way to handle it, but I actually think I'd prefer if they merged Somatic/Verbal into a single 'obvious' tag of some kind, clarifying that certain spells are obvious when they are cast and others are not. For the most part, whether a spell is Verbal, Somatic or both feels pretty arbitrarily defined at the moment anyway.
I ran a homebrew survival campaign where the players started out as commoners with only their racial and background features added to the stat block. In the first chapter of the campaign, they came across different things that they could do to improve their skills. The first few milestones just gave them ability score increases based on what training and activities they engaged in, and once they had the stats for it, they were converted to one of the 3 sidekick classes at level 1 (the stat increases were predetermined and went specifically toward what was needed for the class).
A few more milestones later (the player now choosing where to distribute the ASI they given) and they were converted to one of the primary classes that is related to the sidekick class they had. They would eventually get converted to a full class related to their sidekick class, but the campaign fizzled out due to conflicting schedules and such before we got that far.
My thoughts are now that they have introduced the new variants of races like gem Dragonborn I feel they should be included too. Also the crit success I feel should apply to castors but not skill check only attacks and let dms home rule if they want it. Also noticed the lack of half races. As far as grappling contested is what we are used to but it makes sense the other way too. I personally prefer the old way lucky feat works as far as uses as it’s uniform and easy to remember. The ability based on background is disliked by my table when we discussed it .as for language on background I feel it should be a choice of language so that it makes more sense for each individual character Or region they come from. That all I’ve noticed with my group so far more comments may come later.
There is a slight nerf to lucky in that you can't use it on any roll you already have advantage on (or an opponent has disadvantage on). Before you could essentially roll 3 dice, here it clearly says it gives you advantage and once you already have that....
I’m vary vary disappointed in the half elf/orc solution (cop out) these are iconic elements of the game and this reeks of the same kind of decision making that lead to second edition. Humans, Orcs and Elves are not the same as there mixed race descendants! The hand waving is a poor substitute for good design, I was by no means a fan of 4th Edition but it did do a good job of giving the Half Orc a unique racial profile. Please recognize that this is a game, not a plot to degrade or defame anyone so hopefully I haven’t offended any Orcs/ Elves or there descendants.
Alternatively they could give it flights for a limited timeframe say a minute
The distinction between the two is simply the difference between noticeable sounds (Verbal) and noticeable movements (Somatic). They are not arbitrarily defined - if you look at the list of spells that use one but not the other, you'll notice that there are common themes among them.
If you are casting a spell with Somatic components but no Verbal components and you are hidden, then nobody is going to notice you doing it. There aren't many spells that are Somatic only, but most of them involve controlling the elements, with a few spells that target the minds of other creatures with illusions and psychic damage.
Spells with Verbal components but no Somatic components can be cast even if you are unable to use your arms or your hands are full. The list of spells in this category is nearly double that of the Somatic only spells. These typically include spells that accompany a weapon attack like smites and booming blade, as well as a lot of teleportation spells that might be used to escape a grapple or restraints, and pretty much any spell that has "Word" in the title or the spell description involves you speaking something as part of the effect (e.g. Command, Dissonant Whispers, etc.), but not quite all of them as some require you to touch the target (a Somatic component) or have a material component (like Wish).
There are a ton of spells that require both Verbal and Somatic components, so it would be more difficult to filter through that to find commonalities and distinctions from those that only require a single component.
Sidekick classes as your class…
Thank you kindly internet stranger for blowing my mind, that makes way too much sense!
Agreed. The DM's Guild supplement 'Ancestry & Culture' does a much better job, imo.
With each patch note like that I feel that wizards of the coast are making races less unique. Maybe the excuse is people making builds that tell you "pick this to get something-something" and Wotc thought there would be less for roleplay. But still there are races that are optimal in their way of choosing class and there are some who have less choice like goliaths and pure ocs usually being barbarian and fighters.
Also if that will come out there will be "flavoring" like "I want to play as gorilla" or something.
I think all the races & background stuff is pretty good, however some of the new rules really hit me the wrong way.
Nat 1s & 20s on ability checks: Fine. Natural 20 + modifiers are usually enough to pass any check I'd reasonably throw at players anyways.
The auto-fail against anything DC 30 is not thought-out. These rules are meant to work with 5E, and if that's so, they need to prepare for AC 30+ & rangers with +27 to stealth. However, I highly doubt this is staying. My guess is it'll be replaced with a much more fitting "The DM may decide some ability checks are automatic fails depending on circumstances" or something like that.
Critical hits, I feel like is a seriously unnecessary nerf. Rogues get shafted hard by this in particular, no extra attack, so less likely to get that extra inspiration, and their sneak attack isn't even doubled so what's the point? Fighters can still double all their damage if they're lucky enough, rogues get an extra like 4 points of damage. Sneak Attack is not powerful enough to warrant nerfing.
Paladins too but they're fine. Overall, it's a nice martial buff that fighters get access to free inspirations and stuff though. I just wish they kept the normal crit damage rules on top of that. Also, monsters can't crit anymore, which is... I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Grappling got a nerf. Yes, the disadvantage to attack others is a great taunt and all, but escaping is free in terms of action-economy, and it's a STR or DEX save. That's really bad. Almost everything has either a good DEX, or a good STR.
Worse still, failing the save might be better because that way they and all their allies get advantage against the grappler.I think grappling was in a perfectly fine place before and I don't see the need for this change.spell lists I don't think we know enough to properly judge them considering classes (or at least subclasses) seem to be getting their own special lists in addition to these ones.
Also why did they revert Fizban's dragonborn changes? I mean, 1d10 + level is better than PHB, but still. At the very least just keep the dragon's breath and then have everything else be generic.
edit: I'd also like to see stealth rules, I feel like it's one of the things people point to show how bad the PHB is organized, so it'd be nice to have that all cleared up.
edit from 2 days later, I misread grappling rules, enemies only have advantage on the grappler for attacks of opportunity which isn't as bad. Grapples are easier to do but easier to break out of. Harder to specialize in than before (more ways to increase Athletics than Save DC) but I assume they'll probably rework the grappler feat for that purpose.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Abilities: I like the idea that you're not pigeonholed into playing certain races because they have certain ability scores attached to them. I like the idea that they are going with race attributes and feats. I always hated how everyone plays the same races with the same classes because of the Min/Max dilemma.
Size: I do feel that there needs to be a different set of rules for sizes though. If you're small, you should not necessarily have some of the same options such as strength as a Medium or Large character. There should also be an encumbrance rule difference between sizes as well. A halfling's breastplate would be half the size and half the weight as someone who is Medium and so forth.
Darkvision: Needs to be peeled back and given only to races that would logically have it because of their time in the underdark, ect. It's ok to peel back to 30 ft. or 45 ft. with some races or half-races. Light objects like torches and lanterns need to be useful again. It makes for better gameplay too. :)
Multi-classing: Out of control. Needs peeled way back with more caps and parameters to stop the Min/Max dilemma. Some of my ideas would be to not allow someone to Multiclass more than once and bring in more controlled sub-class options instead. I'm so tired of the Warlock (sigh) Bring back Alignment requirements as well to create more stable, sensible characters. Cherry picking needs to go away.
Alignment: Make alignment a thing with certain classes. It's very annoying to try and explain how a Warlock with a pact to a Demon from the Shadow realm can also be praying to a god of light and be receiving holy and righteous blessings from on high at the same time. This should not be possible.
Digital Overview: All the changes they come up with need to have the fact that a lot of the player base is moving online and digitally in mind. Many of the mechanics are built more from a theatre of the mind or RPG mindset and not a digital map or board viewpoint. These changes need to be compatible with both. My groups are now completely moved over to Foundry Vtt.
To know the light, you must sometimes experience the dark.