The proposed d20 roll change is not something I'm going to use. Crit damage is crit damage, and it only works on attack rolls and for everyone. I'm fed up with the nerfing of casters and adversaries. Buff martials instead of taking away from others.
That's your prerogative. As the DM it is entirely up to you how you run your campaign.
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input. That's what this playtest is all about. But Please: How about actually testing it before ranting and raving over something you read? See how it actually effects your campaign before condemning the change. If you prefer hack and slash sure, this might be huge for you. But, if you enjoy role play, exploration, and problem solving it might not make that much difference.
I've been participating in the world's favorite roleplaying game sine AD&D. The number one rule has always been "Have Fun". Rule #2 is "It's the DMs table". Make your input but don't sweat it. If you are opposed to the finalized rule set just change what you don't like at your table.
Social Justice and Inclusion are huge issues in today's world. With this in mind, why would anyone be opposed to the ASI changes? Are we only hearing from the writers who post class guides? Medical science is finding that environment is just as much of a defining feature as genetics. Tying ASIs to Background is logical and promotes Inclusion. Why should I be pigeon holed into playing a Tabaxi, or any other race, to be a good swashbuckler? Why do I need to read six different source books to figure out what my ability scores are? Changes like this which keep it simple will make the game more accessible to the next generation of players by removing much of the confusion and frustration from character creation.
By the way, does it seem that way to me, or do monsters no longer crit? RAW it seems to me that it is so, that the critics are only for the player characters. I also think it's a good decision.
Monster attacks are listed in stat blocks as "melee weapon attacks" when it comes to horns, claws, bites, tentacles, and all of that sort of stuff, so they'd still crit under the new rules. Just spell or spell-like abilities would no longer have a chance. At least based upon what we're seeing in the UA doc. I have a feeling spell attacks that require attack rolls will be (or is already intended to be) allowed to achieve crits as well. Just my DM opinion though.
"Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; [...]"
I don’t like crits on checks. I think it relies on the DM too much to prevent players from asking for checks. Soon instead of all the crit-fishers being martials with smite and sneak attack it will be just the guy who asks for all the checks.
I don’t like crits on checks. I think it relies on the DM too much to prevent players from asking for checks. Soon instead of all the crit-fishers being martials with smite and sneak attack it will be just the guy who asks for all the checks.
"The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
The player can ask what he wants. If the DM thinks it's not possible, it's not possible. You don't even roll the dice, so the critical chance doesn't matter.
The player can ask what he wants. If the DM thinks it's not possible, it's not possible. You don't even roll the dice, so the critical chance doesn't matter.
That's how the rules are supposed to be but in your experience how many DMs actually run it that way? The majority of my regular DMs frequently ask for checks they probably shouldn't, because they slow the game down, or they didn't really consider what a success might look like. I suspect this is pretty common (there's a skill for what the player wants to do, so you let them roll it. Why not, right?).
I'm hoping in the next basic rules/player's handbook they'll really emphasise the fact that DMs don't need to ask for checks (and shouldn't by default), and that the purpose of skills etc. are for when an outcome is uncertain either because they might not be able to do it, or might not be able to do it in the moment (under time pressure etc.), but something tells me groups will continue getting it wrong regardless!
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
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.
I think that the best is a mix from racial + background for defining ability score bonus; otherwise the race's origin is totally lost. For example, Dwarves +1 COS and other +2 in two different ability scores from BG.
I'd like to see every character get 3 +1s - one from race, one from class, and one from background.
So my question here is: what percent of players do dice rolls for stats and what percent do character build with points?
The reason why I ask this is that if most players are doing a point-buy for stats then why have any plusses at all? Just increase the number of build points and let the person build the character he or she wants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Player * Game Master * Started with OD&D in 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson
are wildshape attacks able to crit? doesnt seem like it. would be nice if they just removed crit damage by saying so for stuff... like sneak, smite, spell attacks, hunters mark, hex etc.
When it comes to the ability score bonuses, I'm at the point where I think they should just stop trying to tie it to either race OR background and just tell everyone to add either +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 as part of character creation. The size of the bonuses is the same for everyone and the default for where they're placed is wildcarded now, so trying to tie them to part of a character's origin is just kind of meaningless.
When it comes to the ability score bonuses, I'm at the point where I think they should just stop trying to tie it to either race OR background and just tell everyone to add either +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 as part of character creation. The size of the bonuses is the same for everyone and the default for where they're placed is wildcarded now, so trying to tie them to part of a character's origin is just kind of meaningless.
I was thinking that, too. That’s effectively what they’re doing when they say it’s attached to background, but you can shuffle it around how you like. When you make them free floating (which I should say I agree with) what you attach them to loses meaning. It might just involve a drastic change to ability generation. Like eliminate rolling (which would make me sad, personally) then get rid of bonuses and beef up point buy/alter standard array to compensate.
On half-races I think it should be treated more like backgrounds. Let players create their own but still give examples like half-elf and half-orc. I think there should be some limitations too. Like you should not be able to be Half-Human Half Tiefling, get all the tiefling traits but look totally human. Maybe take one trait from each race and also one appearance fron each. Can't get all the benefits and none of the disadvantages.
See others commenting on Nat 20. Remember it also says that it doesn't bypass other limitations. So yes common sense does apply. As a DM either don't roll or tell them what they are rolling to succeed at before the roll. In the classic case of the Bard asking to be King. As DM tell them they are rolling to see if the King decides to kill you or not. Then they may decide to forget about it. They could clear that up a bit.
When it comes to the ability score bonuses, I'm at the point where I think they should just stop trying to tie it to either race OR background and just tell everyone to add either +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 as part of character creation. The size of the bonuses is the same for everyone and the default for where they're placed is wildcarded now, so trying to tie them to part of a character's origin is just kind of meaningless.
I was thinking that, too. That’s effectively what they’re doing when they say it’s attached to background, but you can shuffle it around how you like. When you make them free floating (which I should say I agree with) what you attach them to loses meaning. It might just involve a drastic change to ability generation. Like eliminate rolling (which would make me sad, personally) then get rid of bonuses and beef up point buy/alter standard array to compensate.
I'm not sure how "impolite" it is to mention other systems around here, but another big RPG that underwent a major rules revision not too long ago introduced a way of generating ability scores that eliminates rolling and I think it ties some points to race, background AND class, while still offering some points that could be wherever you want so you could make unusual race/class combos viable. I like that concept a lot. If an ability score bonus is going to be linked to a part of your character's origin, then it should also be linked to a specific ability(or maybe you pick from a pair of them, like Str or Dex for martial classes, that kind of thing), or it's not actually relevant to your origin.
When it comes to the ability score bonuses, I'm at the point where I think they should just stop trying to tie it to either race OR background and just tell everyone to add either +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 as part of character creation. The size of the bonuses is the same for everyone and the default for where they're placed is wildcarded now, so trying to tie them to part of a character's origin is just kind of meaningless.
I was thinking that, too. That’s effectively what they’re doing when they say it’s attached to background, but you can shuffle it around how you like. When you make them free floating (which I should say I agree with) what you attach them to loses meaning. It might just involve a drastic change to ability generation. Like eliminate rolling (which would make me sad, personally) then get rid of bonuses and beef up point buy/alter standard array to compensate.
I'm not sure how "impolite" it is to mention other systems around here, but another big RPG that underwent a major rules revision not too long ago introduced a way of generating ability scores that eliminates rolling and I think it ties some points to race, background AND class, while still offering some points that could be wherever you want so you could make unusual race/class combos viable. I like that concept a lot. If an ability score bonus is going to be linked to a part of your character's origin, then it should also be linked to a specific ability(or maybe you pick from a pair of them, like Str or Dex for martial classes, that kind of thing), or it's not actually relevant to your origin.
I assume you mean pf2. I did the playtest there, but I didn’t love the system. As I recall, you got a couple points each from race, background, class, and some just free floating. But in the end, pretty much every character ended up with the same array, just distributed differently, where the fighter would have an 18 in str, while the wizard had it in int. It kind of seemed like a pointless exercise when you always ended up with that same spread, might as well just say, this is the array and cut out the middleman.
It’s a real balancing act, to let you have a good score in your primary so you’ll be good at your job, versus an unexpectedly high or low score in some other ability that make for an unusual character.
What does everyone think about them removing racial armor and weapon proficiencies?
I think they removed them because they're sanitizing every generalization that they might get grief for from certain demographics. I don't personally think such sanitation is necessary, and it lessens the distinctions between the races.
I'd rather see some more mechanical distinctions. Instead of just moving a lot of racial features to the background, split the two into three to better encompass the nuances. There should be unique nuanced features for each (like the 5e background features that don't appear to exist in this playtest material)
Race: the biological features of the character.
Upbringing: the cultural values the character was brought up in (Racial languages, formerly racial weapon/armor proficiencies, etc)
Profession: the way the character made a living after growing up, before starting as an adventurer of the L1 class. (Additional skill, tool, weapon, or language proficiencies, depending on the nature of said profession)
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input. That's what this playtest is all about. But Please: How about actually testing it before ranting and raving over something you read? See how it actually effects your campaign before condemning the change. If you prefer hack and slash sure, this might be huge for you. But, if you enjoy role play, exploration, and problem solving it might not make that much difference.
Yes I like hack and slash, I also like RP and exploration. Removing crits from monsters makes the game that less exiting. Basically, WoTc is saying people who like hack and slash are playing the game wrong. More I can't say as last time I got a warning that wanting a more crunchy game was gatekeeping, now it seems WoTc is doing the inverse thing, but that's A-OK. Ah, well.
Yes I like hack and slash, I also like RP and exploration. Removing crits from monsters makes the game that less exiting. Basically, WoTc is saying people who like hack and slash are playing the game wrong. More I can't say as last time I got a warning that wanting a more crunchy game was gatekeeping, now it seems WoTc is doing the inverse thing, but that's A-OK. Ah, well.
I mean, ultimately your DM can decide whether they want to use critical hits on monsters anyway or not; maybe there'll be an accompanying note in the monsters section on this (like there is for death saves which are technically for all creatures, but usually never used for monsters)?
Personally I prefer to use average monster damage and ignore critical hits already, as it speeds up resolving non-player turns, especially when dealing with larger groups; even with lone big monsters or smaller numbers of elite enemies, these usually hit hard even when just using the average, having a critical hit (which may or may not happen in a fight at all) suddenly turn an already dangerous hit into an instant knockout is usually less fun for the players to be on the receiving end than for them to be dishing out. I prefer to see danger in a big fight coming from something that the players have more ability to plan for and react to, rather than just being dumb luck.
So maybe they're catering to me specifically, but it could just be that they're changing the default for simplicity; the rules may still mention critical hits for monsters in a more relevant section?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's your prerogative. As the DM it is entirely up to you how you run your campaign.
So everyone wants to make a big deal out of the critical damage changes. I would like to see some sage advice on this change before going nuts over it. However, if you are opposed to the change, upvote those posts complaining about the change so that WotC sees your input. That's what this playtest is all about. But Please: How about actually testing it before ranting and raving over something you read? See how it actually effects your campaign before condemning the change. If you prefer hack and slash sure, this might be huge for you. But, if you enjoy role play, exploration, and problem solving it might not make that much difference.
I've been participating in the world's favorite roleplaying game sine AD&D. The number one rule has always been "Have Fun". Rule #2 is "It's the DMs table". Make your input but don't sweat it. If you are opposed to the finalized rule set just change what you don't like at your table.
Social Justice and Inclusion are huge issues in today's world. With this in mind, why would anyone be opposed to the ASI changes? Are we only hearing from the writers who post class guides? Medical science is finding that environment is just as much of a defining feature as genetics. Tying ASIs to Background is logical and promotes Inclusion. Why should I be pigeon holed into playing a Tabaxi, or any other race, to be a good swashbuckler? Why do I need to read six different source books to figure out what my ability scores are? Changes like this which keep it simple will make the game more accessible to the next generation of players by removing much of the confusion and frustration from character creation.
"Weapons and Unarmed Strikes* have a special feature for player characters: Critical Hits. If a player character rolls a 20 for an attack roll with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike, the attack is also a Critical Hit, which means it deals extra damage to the target; [...]"
I say it for this that I highlight.
I don’t like crits on checks. I think it relies on the DM too much to prevent players from asking for checks. Soon instead of all the crit-fishers being martials with smite and sneak attack it will be just the guy who asks for all the checks.
"The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance."
The player can ask what he wants. If the DM thinks it's not possible, it's not possible. You don't even roll the dice, so the critical chance doesn't matter.
That's how the rules are supposed to be but in your experience how many DMs actually run it that way? The majority of my regular DMs frequently ask for checks they probably shouldn't, because they slow the game down, or they didn't really consider what a success might look like. I suspect this is pretty common (there's a skill for what the player wants to do, so you let them roll it. Why not, right?).
I'm hoping in the next basic rules/player's handbook they'll really emphasise the fact that DMs don't need to ask for checks (and shouldn't by default), and that the purpose of skills etc. are for when an outcome is uncertain either because they might not be able to do it, or might not be able to do it in the moment (under time pressure etc.), but something tells me groups will continue getting it wrong regardless!
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I still don’t like the idea of 5% of the time you might make checks in your dump stat, even if success would otherwise be impossible.
I think that the best is a mix from racial + background for defining ability score bonus; otherwise the race's origin is totally lost. For example, Dwarves +1 COS and other +2 in two different ability scores from BG.
G-DM
What does everyone think about them removing racial armor and weapon proficiencies?
So my question here is: what percent of players do dice rolls for stats and what percent do character build with points?
The reason why I ask this is that if most players are doing a point-buy for stats then why have any plusses at all? Just increase the number of build points and let the person build the character he or she wants.
Player * Game Master * Started with OD&D in 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson
are wildshape attacks able to crit? doesnt seem like it. would be nice if they just removed crit damage by saying so for stuff... like sneak, smite, spell attacks, hunters mark, hex etc.
When it comes to the ability score bonuses, I'm at the point where I think they should just stop trying to tie it to either race OR background and just tell everyone to add either +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 as part of character creation. The size of the bonuses is the same for everyone and the default for where they're placed is wildcarded now, so trying to tie them to part of a character's origin is just kind of meaningless.
I was thinking that, too. That’s effectively what they’re doing when they say it’s attached to background, but you can shuffle it around how you like. When you make them free floating (which I should say I agree with) what you attach them to loses meaning.
It might just involve a drastic change to ability generation. Like eliminate rolling (which would make me sad, personally) then get rid of bonuses and beef up point buy/alter standard array to compensate.
On half-races I think it should be treated more like backgrounds. Let players create their own but still give examples like half-elf and half-orc. I think there should be some limitations too. Like you should not be able to be Half-Human Half Tiefling, get all the tiefling traits but look totally human. Maybe take one trait from each race and also one appearance fron each.
Can't get all the benefits and none of the disadvantages.
See others commenting on Nat 20. Remember it also says that it doesn't bypass other limitations. So yes common sense does apply. As a DM either don't roll or tell them what they are rolling to succeed at before the roll. In the classic case of the Bard asking to be King. As DM tell them they are rolling to see if the King decides to kill you or not. Then they may decide to forget about it. They could clear that up a bit.
I'm not sure how "impolite" it is to mention other systems around here, but another big RPG that underwent a major rules revision not too long ago introduced a way of generating ability scores that eliminates rolling and I think it ties some points to race, background AND class, while still offering some points that could be wherever you want so you could make unusual race/class combos viable. I like that concept a lot. If an ability score bonus is going to be linked to a part of your character's origin, then it should also be linked to a specific ability(or maybe you pick from a pair of them, like Str or Dex for martial classes, that kind of thing), or it's not actually relevant to your origin.
I assume you mean pf2. I did the playtest there, but I didn’t love the system. As I recall, you got a couple points each from race, background, class, and some just free floating. But in the end, pretty much every character ended up with the same array, just distributed differently, where the fighter would have an 18 in str, while the wizard had it in int.
It kind of seemed like a pointless exercise when you always ended up with that same spread, might as well just say, this is the array and cut out the middleman.
It’s a real balancing act, to let you have a good score in your primary so you’ll be good at your job, versus an unexpectedly high or low score in some other ability that make for an unusual character.
I think they removed them because they're sanitizing every generalization that they might get grief for from certain demographics. I don't personally think such sanitation is necessary, and it lessens the distinctions between the races.
I'd rather see some more mechanical distinctions. Instead of just moving a lot of racial features to the background, split the two into three to better encompass the nuances. There should be unique nuanced features for each (like the 5e background features that don't appear to exist in this playtest material)
Race: the biological features of the character.
Upbringing: the cultural values the character was brought up in (Racial languages, formerly racial weapon/armor proficiencies, etc)
Profession: the way the character made a living after growing up, before starting as an adventurer of the L1 class. (Additional skill, tool, weapon, or language proficiencies, depending on the nature of said profession)
Yes I like hack and slash, I also like RP and exploration. Removing crits from monsters makes the game that less exiting. Basically, WoTc is saying people who like hack and slash are playing the game wrong. More I can't say as last time I got a warning that wanting a more crunchy game was gatekeeping, now it seems WoTc is doing the inverse thing, but that's A-OK. Ah, well.
I mean, ultimately your DM can decide whether they want to use critical hits on monsters anyway or not; maybe there'll be an accompanying note in the monsters section on this (like there is for death saves which are technically for all creatures, but usually never used for monsters)?
Personally I prefer to use average monster damage and ignore critical hits already, as it speeds up resolving non-player turns, especially when dealing with larger groups; even with lone big monsters or smaller numbers of elite enemies, these usually hit hard even when just using the average, having a critical hit (which may or may not happen in a fight at all) suddenly turn an already dangerous hit into an instant knockout is usually less fun for the players to be on the receiving end than for them to be dishing out. I prefer to see danger in a big fight coming from something that the players have more ability to plan for and react to, rather than just being dumb luck.
So maybe they're catering to me specifically, but it could just be that they're changing the default for simplicity; the rules may still mention critical hits for monsters in a more relevant section?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That those are almost certainly going to be rolled into a 1st level feat.