What does everyone think about them removing racial armor and weapon proficiencies?
That those are almost certainly going to be rolled into a 1st level feat.
This seems likely as it was something that's always been weird mechanically, as it encouraged players to pick certain races just to get a proficiency they can't get from their class. I expect they'll just make Weapon Master a 1st-level feat so it's actually worth taking, though I'm hoping they might add a little extra sweetener onto it (e.g- faster switching of proficient weapons).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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?
Our groups DM's also use average damage for monsters, even for players if they so desire. But we do use crits for everyone. As we use a pc and dndb combat tracker when being the DM, even in person, it doesn't take extra time.
Personally, I kind of like the idea of monster crits generally being replaced by recharge abilities. Simply put, recharge abilities can (and should) offer something cool that can change up gameplay. It makes you treat the fight differently in response to what the monster can do. It's a big flashy ability that you actually have to take into consideration, because even though it isn't guaranteed to be available, it does have a real potential to be up at any time. Crits on monsters generally doesn't change the way you play against them. There's a relatively small chance of it happening and you can't really do anything about it if it does. It isn't bad, I just find it less interesting.
So all in all, depending on the specifics of how they implement it, I'm all for this particular change to how crits work. If recharge abilities become more diverse and more common throughout all CR ranges then I'm kind of excited to see how things turn out.
Personally, I kind of like the idea of monster crits generally being replaced by recharge abilities. Simply put, recharge abilities can (and should) offer something cool that can change up gameplay. It makes you treat the fight differently in response to what the monster can do. It's a big flashy ability that you actually have to take into consideration, because even though it isn't guaranteed to be available, it does have a real potential to be up at any time. Crits on monsters generally doesn't change the way you play against them. There's a relatively small chance of it happening and you can't really do anything about it if it does. It isn't bad, I just find it less interesting.
So all in all, depending on the specifics of how they implement it, I'm all for this particular change to how crits work. If recharge abilities become more diverse and more common throughout all CR ranges then I'm kind of excited to see how things turn out.
I don't disagree, but if it was the plan to give more recharge abilities or some other Crit replacement mechanics, that should have appeared either in this UA or they should have waited and added the Crit playtest material to a UA that covered those mechanics.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Edit: Also, never once did JC state that there would be any new replacement mechanics beyond Inspiration. He talked about existing recharge abilities but never said or hinted that they were going to expand on those beyond what already exists.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Simple. Don't expect cool replacement mechanics yet. None have yet been announced.
Alternately state specifically in feedback survey, "I'm open to the idea of these Crit changes but I feel like we need something else to compensate for removing monsters' ability to make critical hits."
The more transparent we can be about feedback the better.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Simple. Don't expect cool replacement mechanics yet. None have yet been announced.
Alternately state specifically in feedback survey, "I'm open to the idea of these Crit changes but I feel like we need something else to compensate for removing monsters' ability to make critical hits."
The more transparent we can be about feedback the better.
This is exactly what I am telling people. Don't look at the UA changes to crits and think that there is something more coming because we don't know that.
I genuinely hope they don't ask for feedback on the crit changes in the upcoming survey. I want to see what else they have planned to go with it before I go running my mouth about it.
I genuinely hope they don't ask for feedback on the crit changes in the upcoming survey. I want to see what else they have planned to go with it before I go running my mouth about it.
I think it was a very bad idea to introduce that rule change in the first UA. It would be much easier to judge it fairly after we knew more about the proposed changes to classes and monsters. But it is what it is.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Simple. Don't expect cool replacement mechanics yet. None have yet been announced.
Alternately state specifically in feedback survey, "I'm open to the idea of these Crit changes but I feel like we need something else to compensate for removing monsters' ability to make critical hits."
The more transparent we can be about feedback the better.
This is exactly what I am telling people. Don't look at the UA changes to crits and think that there is something more coming because we don't know that.
I mean, to be honest, I don't really care about them removing monster crits even without recharge abilities replacing them. While I would like more interesting things added to monsters, losing monster crits isn't really some great loss to me either way. I agree with them that monster crits have very rarely been some big wow moment for me. I've definitely seen more player frustration (and not the interesting kind) caused by them than any moments of 'wasn't that cool?!'. Like, its happened, but more often than not it's functionally just another hit worth of damage from an already bog standard attack. Meh.
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Simple. Don't expect cool replacement mechanics yet. None have yet been announced.
Alternately state specifically in feedback survey, "I'm open to the idea of these Crit changes but I feel like we need something else to compensate for removing monsters' ability to make critical hits."
The more transparent we can be about feedback the better.
This is exactly what I am telling people. Don't look at the UA changes to crits and think that there is something more coming because we don't know that.
I mean, to be honest, I don't really care about them removing monster crits even without recharge abilities replacing them. While I would like more interesting things added to monsters, losing monster crits isn't really some great loss to me either way. I agree with them that monster crits have very rarely been some big wow moment for me. I've definitely seen more player frustration (and not the interesting kind) caused by them than any moments of 'wasn't that cool?!'. Like, its happened, but more often than not it's functionally just another hit worth of damage from an already bog standard attack. Meh.
Don't mistake my attempt to promote playtesting UA material based purely on what has been provided as a mark against said material. I just hope for the most factually based critique of the rules in the upcoming survey as possible.
MONSTER CRIT CHANGES WAS ALREADY STATED IT IS CHARGES OF MONSTER ACTIONS, LIKE DRAGONS BREATH WEAPON.
BY THAT reference id expect them adding actions comparable to breath weapon recharges in all levels of CR, IF the creature doesn't already have a cr appropriate comparable action
im fine with monsters not having crit damage, it just means, add more monsters, more than likely they would be minions at low levels.
Please don't write in all caps. Use the bold function to underline your point. It hurts my head.
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?
Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll -- From the playtest entry for Rolling A 20
Things that are impossible are still impossible. I never got that argument against Crit Success/Fail in ability tests. YOU GET TO DECIDE IF THERE IS A ROLE. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE ROLL IS FOR. It can be just as much a roll for levels of failure or levels of success. You, as DM, can decide that NO ROLL HAPPENS. If Crits guarantee success, then YOU agree to that when you allow a roll.
If I don’t make something outright impossible, there is always a 5% chance of success. There is a lot is space between 5% and impossible. It will force the DM to consider “do I want this to be impossible for THIS character.” I occasionally plan stuff in that DC 25 - 30 range where a higher level or appropriately optimized character just might be able to succeed, but where there should be no chance (or at least not 5%) otherwise. Now I will have that extra cognitive load as a DM before I allow the roll.
I will have to play test this further. One way to address this might be to use more instances of “you can roll, but only if you’re proficient.”
Most racial and background changes are nice. The orc feels a bit underwhelming (give him the bonus damage at critical hits back).
The critical change goes in both directions because it nerfs players and monsters. I can live with it because it does make some encounters less trivial where now monsters are slain in the first round because of 3 crits from players on them. But the rogue needs some improvements to replace the huge crit nerf on him. For example: add the backstab ability from D&D 4e to him. Useable proficiency bonus times per long rest and deals (level/4 rounded down, at least one die)D6 damage on a hit. And can be used even if there is no advantage. This is in addition to any sneak attack damage. On the spell caster, the nerf is hard but acceptable because attack spells are currently slightly better than a save spell due to its ability to crit. One question arises: How are spells handled in the case of crits when they create weapons used in melee attacks (Shadowblade, Spiritual Weapons, Flame Blade, Elemental Weapon, and so on), and what is with weapons with an additional effect like Flame Tongue, Holy Avenger or Sunblade?
Most feats are nice and now better useable like the Magic initiate which can now use leveled spell slots too. Generally can the feats at level 1 helps not to have multiclass because missing some important stuff. My life cleric can have picked MI Primal for Shillelagh, Goodberries, and another cantrip and were not be forced into 1 level druid. Currently, MI would have been an option earliest at level 12 which is far too late.
They will need to replace the grave 6th level ability as it only has effects on a crit.
For me the biggest trouble with monster crits is their ability to insta-kill someone at very low levels. Rather than changing a bunch of stat blocks, I would simply set a CR threshold, all monsters with a CR less than the threshold don't crit.
They will need to replace the grave 6th level ability as it only has effects on a crit.
Well, the thing I’m wondering is, they are saying the new choices will be backward compatible with adventures, but to me, they are not saying they will be compatible with existing class/subclass options. So it’s not that they’ll have to change grave clerics. It’s that grave clerics, along with all other existing class/subclasses won’t exist. I could be misunderstanding, and I haven’t had time to watch that hour long video, so someone please correct me if that’s wrong. But I haven’t heard them say existing character options will be compatible. Examples like this one make me think not, as the more rule changes they make, the more different classes will be effected. Obviously they would still exist, and we could still use them, but I’m wondering if we’ll need to go all in one way or the other, as opposed to mix-and-match. And if they’ll stack up enough that you could have a 5e cleric, sitting at the same table as a 1D&D cleric, and they’d both be roughly equal.
They will need to replace the grave 6th level ability as it only has effects on a crit.
For me the biggest trouble with monster crits is their ability to insta-kill someone at very low levels. Rather than changing a bunch of stat blocks, I would simply set a CR threshold, all monsters with a CR less than the threshold don't crit.
We can argue back and forth over low level survivability, but the point of the playtest is to find the issues that might impact the mechanics, not just what is fun and what isn't. Bran has a very valid question that pertains to the how this change could impact the game and how backwards compatible it is.
This seems likely as it was something that's always been weird mechanically, as it encouraged players to pick certain races just to get a proficiency they can't get from their class. I expect they'll just make Weapon Master a 1st-level feat so it's actually worth taking, though I'm hoping they might add a little extra sweetener onto it (e.g- faster switching of proficient weapons).
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.
Our groups DM's also use average damage for monsters, even for players if they so desire. But we do use crits for everyone. As we use a pc and dndb combat tracker when being the DM, even in person, it doesn't take extra time.
Personally, I kind of like the idea of monster crits generally being replaced by recharge abilities. Simply put, recharge abilities can (and should) offer something cool that can change up gameplay. It makes you treat the fight differently in response to what the monster can do. It's a big flashy ability that you actually have to take into consideration, because even though it isn't guaranteed to be available, it does have a real potential to be up at any time. Crits on monsters generally doesn't change the way you play against them. There's a relatively small chance of it happening and you can't really do anything about it if it does. It isn't bad, I just find it less interesting.
So all in all, depending on the specifics of how they implement it, I'm all for this particular change to how crits work. If recharge abilities become more diverse and more common throughout all CR ranges then I'm kind of excited to see how things turn out.
I don't disagree, but if it was the plan to give more recharge abilities or some other Crit replacement mechanics, that should have appeared either in this UA or they should have waited and added the Crit playtest material to a UA that covered those mechanics.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I mean, they explicitly told us that was kind of the plan to test that out with the coming UA materials. It was in the video explaining the changes that were in the document. I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it early to give people time to get used to the idea before releasing the material.
But what happens if you say you like the Crit changes as presented expecting to get cool replacement mechanics but then you don't actually get them or don't like them? We can only judge the Crit mechanics based off of what we actually have and not what we might have maybe.
Edit: Also, never once did JC state that there would be any new replacement mechanics beyond Inspiration. He talked about existing recharge abilities but never said or hinted that they were going to expand on those beyond what already exists.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Simple. Don't expect cool replacement mechanics yet. None have yet been announced.
Alternately state specifically in feedback survey, "I'm open to the idea of these Crit changes but I feel like we need something else to compensate for removing monsters' ability to make critical hits."
The more transparent we can be about feedback the better.
This is exactly what I am telling people. Don't look at the UA changes to crits and think that there is something more coming because we don't know that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I genuinely hope they don't ask for feedback on the crit changes in the upcoming survey. I want to see what else they have planned to go with it before I go running my mouth about it.
I think it was a very bad idea to introduce that rule change in the first UA. It would be much easier to judge it fairly after we knew more about the proposed changes to classes and monsters. But it is what it is.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I mean, to be honest, I don't really care about them removing monster crits even without recharge abilities replacing them. While I would like more interesting things added to monsters, losing monster crits isn't really some great loss to me either way. I agree with them that monster crits have very rarely been some big wow moment for me. I've definitely seen more player frustration (and not the interesting kind) caused by them than any moments of 'wasn't that cool?!'. Like, its happened, but more often than not it's functionally just another hit worth of damage from an already bog standard attack. Meh.
Don't mistake my attempt to promote playtesting UA material based purely on what has been provided as a mark against said material. I just hope for the most factually based critique of the rules in the upcoming survey as possible.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Please don't write in all caps. Use the bold function to underline your point. It hurts my head.
They will need to replace the grave 6th level ability as it only has effects on a crit.
If I don’t make something outright impossible, there is always a 5% chance of success. There is a lot is space between 5% and impossible. It will force the DM to consider “do I want this to be impossible for THIS character.” I occasionally plan stuff in that DC 25 - 30 range where a higher level or appropriately optimized character just might be able to succeed, but where there should be no chance (or at least not 5%) otherwise. Now I will have that extra cognitive load as a DM before I allow the roll.
I will have to play test this further. One way to address this might be to use more instances of “you can roll, but only if you’re proficient.”
Most racial and background changes are nice. The orc feels a bit underwhelming (give him the bonus damage at critical hits back).
The critical change goes in both directions because it nerfs players and monsters. I can live with it because it does make some encounters less trivial where now monsters are slain in the first round because of 3 crits from players on them. But the rogue needs some improvements to replace the huge crit nerf on him. For example: add the backstab ability from D&D 4e to him. Useable proficiency bonus times per long rest and deals (level/4 rounded down, at least one die)D6 damage on a hit. And can be used even if there is no advantage. This is in addition to any sneak attack damage. On the spell caster, the nerf is hard but acceptable because attack spells are currently slightly better than a save spell due to its ability to crit. One question arises: How are spells handled in the case of crits when they create weapons used in melee attacks (Shadowblade, Spiritual Weapons, Flame Blade, Elemental Weapon, and so on), and what is with weapons with an additional effect like Flame Tongue, Holy Avenger or Sunblade?
Most feats are nice and now better useable like the Magic initiate which can now use leveled spell slots too. Generally can the feats at level 1 helps not to have multiclass because missing some important stuff. My life cleric can have picked MI Primal for Shillelagh, Goodberries, and another cantrip and were not be forced into 1 level druid. Currently, MI would have been an option earliest at level 12 which is far too late.
For me the biggest trouble with monster crits is their ability to insta-kill someone at very low levels. Rather than changing a bunch of stat blocks, I would simply set a CR threshold, all monsters with a CR less than the threshold don't crit.
Well, the thing I’m wondering is, they are saying the new choices will be backward compatible with adventures, but to me, they are not saying they will be compatible with existing class/subclass options.
So it’s not that they’ll have to change grave clerics. It’s that grave clerics, along with all other existing class/subclasses won’t exist.
I could be misunderstanding, and I haven’t had time to watch that hour long video, so someone please correct me if that’s wrong. But I haven’t heard them say existing character options will be compatible. Examples like this one make me think not, as the more rule changes they make, the more different classes will be effected.
Obviously they would still exist, and we could still use them, but I’m wondering if we’ll need to go all in one way or the other, as opposed to mix-and-match. And if they’ll stack up enough that you could have a 5e cleric, sitting at the same table as a 1D&D cleric, and they’d both be roughly equal.
We can argue back and forth over low level survivability, but the point of the playtest is to find the issues that might impact the mechanics, not just what is fun and what isn't. Bran has a very valid question that pertains to the how this change could impact the game and how backwards compatible it is.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I wish this document gave more of a vertical slice of the system. This seems to be quite a horizontal slice.