I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
Complain all you like. People who really like the new rules ideas and see a lot of excitement and possibility in what they open up will do their best to get people to stop knee-jerk naysaying it and actually think about the document instead of, as one example: "NO CRITS? NO SALE" If, once you've thought about the thing instead of just reacting to the thing, you decide to lambast it in the survey and demand Wizards never change D&D again ever? I am factually incapable of stopping you. I don't agree with every proposal in the playtest document myself and intend to leave that feedback, but there are other parts of the document that are enormously exciting.
Enough so that should The Playerbase, i.e. the mindless seething fleshy gibbering mouther mass of mindless screeching maws that cannot abide D&D changing or D&D staying the same, destroy this document they way they destroyed psionics in earlier playtest cycles? I legit don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them.
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
Complain all you like. People who really like the new rules ideas and see a lot of excitement and possibility in what they open up will do their best to get people to stop knee-jerk naysaying it and actually think about the document instead of, as one example: "NO CRITS? NO SALE" If, once you've thought about the thing instead of just reacting to the thing, you decide to lambast it in the survey and demand Wizards never change D&D again ever? I am factually incapable of stopping you. I don't agree with every proposal in the playtest document myself and intend to leave that feedback, but there are other parts of the document that are enormously exciting.
Enough so that should The Playerbase, i.e. the mindless seething fleshy gibbering mouther mass of mindless screeching maws that cannot abide D&D changing or D&D staying the same, destroy this document they way they destroyed psionics in earlier playtest cycles? I legit don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them.
And can people think and disagree with you? Is my view about the half races kneejerk? What happens when you don't like something and people call your knee jerk? Yes there is knee jerk reactions to changes. There is also the knee jerk reactions that the changes are amazing and no one can say anything bad about it. We have to get away from the idea that people who disagree with us are not thinking.
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
Complain all you like. People who really like the new rules ideas and see a lot of excitement and possibility in what they open up will do their best to get people to stop knee-jerk naysaying it and actually think about the document instead of, as one example: "NO CRITS? NO SALE" If, once you've thought about the thing instead of just reacting to the thing, you decide to lambast it in the survey and demand Wizards never change D&D again ever? I am factually incapable of stopping you. I don't agree with every proposal in the playtest document myself and intend to leave that feedback, but there are other parts of the document that are enormously exciting.
Enough so that should The Playerbase, i.e. the mindless seething fleshy gibbering mouther mass of mindless screeching maws that cannot abide D&D changing or D&D staying the same, destroy this document they way they destroyed psionics in earlier playtest cycles? I legit don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them.
And can people think and disagree with you? Is my view about the half races kneejerk? What happens when you don't like something and people call your knee jerk? Yes there is knee jerk reactions to changes. There is also the knee jerk reactions that the changes are amazing and no one can say anything bad about it. We have to get away from the idea that people who disagree with us are not thinking.
So far you have not contributed anything to the discussion of the UA in this thread beyond complaining about other people not letting you complain about the UA. Is there anything that you would like to say about the UA in question?
Of course you can disagree with me. I simply haven't seen you do that yet, other than calling me out on telling people to stop panicking.
You don't like the treatment of half-and-half mixed-breed characters? Cool. Personally I think the suggestion in the document is a blah, low-hanging fruit solve that doesn't speak to the fantasy of being a mixed-breed, but I also know - and further, I know that Wizards knows - that mix-and-match species where you have a pool of points, say, to allocate to different traits of different parentage would be The Last Straw to far too many existing players. The answer is either everybody gets a half-and-half sheet, i.e. every conceivable pairing of two species in the PHB gets its own special stat block a'la half-elves and half-orcs, or nobody does. The correct answer, in that case, is 'nobody does'. Homebrew is always a thing, I've homebrewed species statblocks for nonstandard mixed-breed characters before, but there is no system robust enough for Wizards to invent that would allow for easy, intuitive crossbreeding rules. There's entire books written on the subject in the DM's Guild, look up An Elf and an Orc Had a Little Baby.
People's instantaneous explosions and constant bellyaching about the new crit rules was nothing but knee-jerk nonsense, however. Every single thread I saw in the two days following the doc drop was "THEY CHANGED IT NOW IT SUCKS", with no real logic, reasoning, or justification for any of their outcry beyond "I just like critting super hard why shouldn't I be able to?!" Which, all right, fair. The dopamine hit is real. But if you insist on being able to 10x your damage on any given hit because half the classes in the game have resources they can dump into overcharging a crit after the crit is rolled, then you're never going to get the kind of fine-tuned encounter balance everybody keeps whining about wanting. And in worlds where monsters routinely throw 6+ dice of damage on a single blow in higher levels, monster crits get out of hand in the same way.
I happen to agree with Crawford (which does not happen super often, really) in that Recharge abilities that allow a monster to do something cool, iconic, flashy, and too powerful to allow as an every-turn thing is a much better design than shit like turning a dragon's breath weapon into just part of its Multiattack and stripping away almost all of its damage so the 'breath weapon' can crit, a'la some of the dunder-headed nonsense I've seen since the document dropped. As a DM, watching my players' sphincters tighten when I start drawing out ranges and narrating the run-up to a monster pulling the trigger on its game-changing Recharge or 1/day abilities is awesome. It's more fun for me as a DM to get to use these iconic supermoves like something out of a fighting game or a JRPG Limit break, and it's more fun for my players to struggle to overcome these powerful and iconic moves. They can brag later about having withstood a dragon's flame in a way you just can't if the "dragon's flame" is a 2d6 damage cone it poots from one nostril in the middle of a six-blow multiattack.
I'm more than willing to trade away monster crits if it means a stronger emphasis on monsters getting Iconic Limit Break Supermoves - especially since it's the easiest thing in the world to use Recharge to put crits back in. You can simply have a "Brutal Blow" Recharge trait that allows the monster to crit on an attack of its choice, and quite possibly even do extra damage over and above a player crit. Brutal Blow could be a generic trait in the nuDMG that DMs could add to any generic monster they want to punch up a little bit, and then the DM gets to control when crits happen, who those crits target, and whether they need to happen or not.
It's why I recommend watching the video. Doing so not only gives context for the playtest, but also gives you time to sit down and think. It stills jerking knees and gives you an hour to ponder the things being discussed, which is important.
The new rules do not give you a 5% chance to do the impossible. If something shouldn't be possible, there shouldn't be a roll called for in the first place.
Outside of their turn on combat, generaly players shouldn't be deciding when they roll things. The player shouldn't say "I roll strength to try and barge down the door." They should say "I ram into the door and try to force it open" and the DM either lets it work, says it fails, or calls for a roll.
The bigger impact would really come from super high end DCs on combat things like saving throws. If a creature has a DC on an ability over 20 for example and a character has no bonus to that savin gthrow, they can now have a 5% chance of making it.
So when are we allowed to say we don't like something. If we want things to change in playtest we need to speak up. Otherwise they will think it is all good. For the most part my only complaint is the half-races. I think it needs more refinement. For instance the half-elf cleric that is my rogues half-sister would be a very different character. Half of her would just be cosmetic. Why I suggest changing it to be more that you select a trait or two from each race. I think they need more than what is presented so far.
You are free to complain or praise anything you like about the UA here on the forums, but the best way to get your voice heard by WotC is to fill out the Survey coming at the beginning of September.
I am talking about all the people who seem to think it is perfect now and no one should complain.
Ok I think there is a difference between seeing improvements that need to be made and wholesale, not in my name refusal to accept change. For instance I will be feeding back that half races need some more work, and I have several concrete examples now where they don't fee different enough to the main class they are based on. But, I do agree with no Half Elf/Half Orc race. I think improvements can be made that allow half races to feel unique without having them a distinct box.
I like the new Crit rules, but, you now have far too many ways for players to get advantage so my advice would be that if wizards want to keep the Inspiration idea then they bring in some limitations to things like the help action in combat, or flanking, or assisting in ability checks to balance it out a bit better. I will also be stating that monsters will need a buff now in terms of damage, especially ones with nothing other than a normal attack. Having run some mock fights the lack of crit hits by, for instance, a goblin means that even a deadly encounter is easier for parties to deal with due to the AC disparity.
I like the changes to Grapple etc, it turns grappling into a valid option now, previously you grappled someone and there was no benefit to trying to break the grapple vs just hitting the person holding you (or someone else next to you).
So yes you can have your opinion on improvements, but, make them constructive to the material that is presented rather then a blanket "I don't like it" try and explain mechanically why you don't like it.
I did watch the video. I thought about it. I still don't agree with everything.
If I wanted to homebrew everything I'd make my own game.
For half-races I would then use my suggestion of treating it like backgrounds and use half-elf and half-orc as example. Still lets people create any mix but uses the two classic examples people know as a way to build your own. I feel the fact that it really if just picking one race and adding cosmetic changes from the other is a disservice. It just says half the choice is just flavor.
So we both agree that the half species as written now is not enough and needs tweaks. We don't know at this point if they will add more or keep it as the same. So it is a good time to discuss it and bring it up. Also good to discuss it amongst ourselves as it might help when we bring it further,
As for crits it is going to depend on the creature for me. My party often fights people. So a crit by the guards might make sense. A dragon has so much going on that a crit doesn't matter. Something attacking with a weapon that a human could use is different. Showing that a Kobold can get a lucky shot in
I did watch the video. I thought about it. I still don't agree with everything.
If I wanted to homebrew everything I'd make my own game.
For half-races I would then use my suggestion of treating it like backgrounds and use half-elf and half-orc as example. Still lets people create any mix but uses the two classic examples people know as a way to build your own. I feel the fact that it really if just picking one race and adding cosmetic changes from the other is a disservice. It just says half the choice is just flavor.
So we both agree that the half species as written now is not enough and needs tweaks. We don't know at this point if they will add more or keep it as the same. So it is a good time to discuss it and bring it up. Also good to discuss it amongst ourselves as it might help when we bring it further,
As for crits it is going to depend on the creature for me. My party often fights people. So a crit by the guards might make sense. A dragon has so much going on that a crit doesn't matter. Something attacking with a weapon that a human could use is different. Showing that a Kobold can get a lucky shot in
I certainly agree that the concept of pick a race and alter it cosmetically is less than ideal. I don't exactly want a completely modular race system, but having a few traits that can be swapped out from one race to another for bi-racial mechanics would be better than "just play and Elf that looks kind of like an Orc".
Kobolds, goblins, bandits, and all the rest can get lucky shots in. Natural 20s are still automatic hits on attack rolls. They're just not crits. A bandit doesn't suddenly get to deal 15d6 damage because it rolled a nat 20 on the die, but it does get to hit even the 27AC Legendary Paladin. For all the good it will do that particular bandit.
Isn't that the entire point behind the hue and cry and ugly outrage at monsters not being able to crit? That DMs can't just instantly Chunky Salsa a PC at a whim because they feel the PCs haven't suffered enough character deaths this session yet, Paul's still got two whole backup sheets from the weekend's character sweatshop session?
But the player gets to do 15d6 because they roll a 20. But you would have no problem with that bandit having recharge abilities. Not talking bandit #5 we're talking named nemesis of one of the player characters who are having a duel.
But the player gets to do 15d6 because they roll a 20. But you would have no problem with that bandit having recharge abilities. Not talking bandit #5 we're talking named nemesis of one of the player characters who are having a duel.
Don’t crits just do double damage not including STR modifier? That means that bandit chieftain does more than 7d6 base damage.
But the player gets to do 15d6 because they roll a 20. But you would have no problem with that bandit having recharge abilities. Not talking bandit #5 we're talking named nemesis of one of the player characters who are having a duel.
Don’t cries just do double damage not including STR modifier? That means that bandit chieftain does more than 7d6 base damage.
No, it now does weapon damage only twice. If your weapon does 1d6 damage you role another d6. So not double damage. You could role two ones for damage s. 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; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier
CRITICAL HITS 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; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier. If your Weapon or Unarmed Strike has no damage dice, it deals no extra damage on a Critical Hit.
This and only this should be what we judge the changes to Critical Hits on. This is what was presented to us to playtest. We should not assume that there will be class changes, updates to monsters, or any other future Critical Hit mechanics beyond this text. When you fill out the survey in the next couple weeks, I hope that you look a this text and decide if this is or isn't what you want for the future of the game based on this and not some hypothetical concept you created yourself or heard from some one else that isn't a creator working on this project.
That is what I am basing it on, from my side it is a good change, that balances combats out and makes it easier to predict the damage output of the party round to round when planning encounters. I don't have to plan for a massive spike in damage on my BBEG, and I don't have to worry about my monsters getting critical hits and pitch the encounter accordingly. But some of the monsters now do hit lighter, I set up a deadly encounter with a set of monsters with nothing other then hitting abilities (no special rules) and, with no crit hits the players didn't really feel that pressured by it.
So I think we do have to consider the round when giving feedback, so my feedback will state that I feel monsters need to be buffed to account for the lower damage output round to round, but assuming that happens then this is a change I am happy with. I will also indicate that the Rogue at my table wasn't overly concerned about losing the crit hit on sneak attack but there was a sense that players are now getting advantage far far too much in the game, flanking, the help action, supporting ability checks and now inspiration from nat 20's. All of that needs to be looked at in relation to these new crit rules.
This has been my experience too. I feel crit change is actually pretty good because of the loss of the spikes, but I also feel inspiration just needs to go away. It is just too much advantage too often. It got forgotten before, and now it is just almost always on. I used it to give myself advantage on a concentration check to maintain a powerful spell that was helping in the encounter just to nearly guarantee that I didn't lose concentration with a +2 to con. Another player rolls a 20 later and just gifts it back to me because we all recognized that we didn't want me losing concentration on the spell and they were saving theirs for a saving throw or a later skill check instead of attacking, because of all the ways we have to gain advantage on attacks when working together.
The fight didn't feel as epic as it should, or as nail biting as it should. Not because I knew the monsters couldn't crit, but because I wasn't worried about losing concentration on a great spell because I got advantage on it the one time I was stuck in melee. The other players weren't worried about their con saves or their dex saves because advantage for that was always at their finger tips on demand.
What I find there's always something imperfect with the editions. It works, but there's always something missing. Personally I don't think it's really a void that could be filled. What most folks need a break from dnd and a fresh campaign when they return. 5th edition is okay, just need a few tweaks now and then. Maybe better lore that made sense, a new world explore, or a willingness to try different playstyles. Dnd one feels like a complete unnecessary overhaul to a decent edition.
One thing they really need to do is hire a good editor to put together the new versions of the PHB so that you can actually find things. Some of the rules (particularly around spellcasting) are scattered throughout the book at present with no real thought as to how the information can be located.
For example one of my players wanted to figure out how many spells his wizard could know. You would think it would be in the Spellcasting chapter, right? Nope...it's buried in the middle of a paragraph in the Wizard class description. Not highlighted or broken out from the main text in any way.
And don't get me started on how useless the index is...
That's one of the big problems with organization, actually - there is no 'right' decision. As one example, I cannot think of any reason at all that the number of spells a wizard can know would be in the Spellcasting general rules - that information belongs in the Wizard class description for me and nowhere else. It would be unneeded clutter in the Spellcasting rules. You and I have two very different, yet still valid, interpretations of where the information should be, which makes it impossible for Wizards to get that right, ne?
And don't get me started on how useless the index is...
OMG THIS so hard. The index in the DMG and PHB (especially) the PHB are almost useless. It's maddening that they don't just list the page numbers for the redundant/duplicative entries, instead forcing you to keep flipping for the "right" entry.
This is not correct. There are no stock backgrounds. The default method is build your own, and the samples are just there to show you what is possible. They even state the samples are just inspiration and that you should change the sample backgrounds to fit your needs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Complain all you like. People who really like the new rules ideas and see a lot of excitement and possibility in what they open up will do their best to get people to stop knee-jerk naysaying it and actually think about the document instead of, as one example: "NO CRITS? NO SALE" If, once you've thought about the thing instead of just reacting to the thing, you decide to lambast it in the survey and demand Wizards never change D&D again ever? I am factually incapable of stopping you. I don't agree with every proposal in the playtest document myself and intend to leave that feedback, but there are other parts of the document that are enormously exciting.
Enough so that should The Playerbase, i.e. the mindless seething fleshy gibbering mouther mass of mindless screeching maws that cannot abide D&D changing or D&D staying the same, destroy this document they way they destroyed psionics in earlier playtest cycles? I legit don't know if I'll ever be able to forgive them.
Please do not contact or message me.
And can people think and disagree with you?
Is my view about the half races kneejerk?
What happens when you don't like something and people call your knee jerk?
Yes there is knee jerk reactions to changes. There is also the knee jerk reactions that the changes are amazing and no one can say anything bad about it.
We have to get away from the idea that people who disagree with us are not thinking.
So far you have not contributed anything to the discussion of the UA in this thread beyond complaining about other people not letting you complain about the UA. Is there anything that you would like to say about the UA in question?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Of course you can disagree with me. I simply haven't seen you do that yet, other than calling me out on telling people to stop panicking.
You don't like the treatment of half-and-half mixed-breed characters? Cool. Personally I think the suggestion in the document is a blah, low-hanging fruit solve that doesn't speak to the fantasy of being a mixed-breed, but I also know - and further, I know that Wizards knows - that mix-and-match species where you have a pool of points, say, to allocate to different traits of different parentage would be The Last Straw to far too many existing players. The answer is either everybody gets a half-and-half sheet, i.e. every conceivable pairing of two species in the PHB gets its own special stat block a'la half-elves and half-orcs, or nobody does. The correct answer, in that case, is 'nobody does'. Homebrew is always a thing, I've homebrewed species statblocks for nonstandard mixed-breed characters before, but there is no system robust enough for Wizards to invent that would allow for easy, intuitive crossbreeding rules. There's entire books written on the subject in the DM's Guild, look up An Elf and an Orc Had a Little Baby.
People's instantaneous explosions and constant bellyaching about the new crit rules was nothing but knee-jerk nonsense, however. Every single thread I saw in the two days following the doc drop was "THEY CHANGED IT NOW IT SUCKS", with no real logic, reasoning, or justification for any of their outcry beyond "I just like critting super hard why shouldn't I be able to?!" Which, all right, fair. The dopamine hit is real. But if you insist on being able to 10x your damage on any given hit because half the classes in the game have resources they can dump into overcharging a crit after the crit is rolled, then you're never going to get the kind of fine-tuned encounter balance everybody keeps whining about wanting. And in worlds where monsters routinely throw 6+ dice of damage on a single blow in higher levels, monster crits get out of hand in the same way.
I happen to agree with Crawford (which does not happen super often, really) in that Recharge abilities that allow a monster to do something cool, iconic, flashy, and too powerful to allow as an every-turn thing is a much better design than shit like turning a dragon's breath weapon into just part of its Multiattack and stripping away almost all of its damage so the 'breath weapon' can crit, a'la some of the dunder-headed nonsense I've seen since the document dropped. As a DM, watching my players' sphincters tighten when I start drawing out ranges and narrating the run-up to a monster pulling the trigger on its game-changing Recharge or 1/day abilities is awesome. It's more fun for me as a DM to get to use these iconic supermoves like something out of a fighting game or a JRPG Limit break, and it's more fun for my players to struggle to overcome these powerful and iconic moves. They can brag later about having withstood a dragon's flame in a way you just can't if the "dragon's flame" is a 2d6 damage cone it poots from one nostril in the middle of a six-blow multiattack.
I'm more than willing to trade away monster crits if it means a stronger emphasis on monsters getting Iconic Limit Break Supermoves - especially since it's the easiest thing in the world to use Recharge to put crits back in. You can simply have a "Brutal Blow" Recharge trait that allows the monster to crit on an attack of its choice, and quite possibly even do extra damage over and above a player crit. Brutal Blow could be a generic trait in the nuDMG that DMs could add to any generic monster they want to punch up a little bit, and then the DM gets to control when crits happen, who those crits target, and whether they need to happen or not.
It's why I recommend watching the video. Doing so not only gives context for the playtest, but also gives you time to sit down and think. It stills jerking knees and gives you an hour to ponder the things being discussed, which is important.
Please do not contact or message me.
The new rules do not give you a 5% chance to do the impossible. If something shouldn't be possible, there shouldn't be a roll called for in the first place.
Outside of their turn on combat, generaly players shouldn't be deciding when they roll things. The player shouldn't say "I roll strength to try and barge down the door." They should say "I ram into the door and try to force it open" and the DM either lets it work, says it fails, or calls for a roll.
The bigger impact would really come from super high end DCs on combat things like saving throws. If a creature has a DC on an ability over 20 for example and a character has no bonus to that savin gthrow, they can now have a 5% chance of making it.
Ok I think there is a difference between seeing improvements that need to be made and wholesale, not in my name refusal to accept change.
For instance I will be feeding back that half races need some more work, and I have several concrete examples now where they don't fee different enough to the main class they are based on. But, I do agree with no Half Elf/Half Orc race. I think improvements can be made that allow half races to feel unique without having them a distinct box.
I like the new Crit rules, but, you now have far too many ways for players to get advantage so my advice would be that if wizards want to keep the Inspiration idea then they bring in some limitations to things like the help action in combat, or flanking, or assisting in ability checks to balance it out a bit better. I will also be stating that monsters will need a buff now in terms of damage, especially ones with nothing other than a normal attack. Having run some mock fights the lack of crit hits by, for instance, a goblin means that even a deadly encounter is easier for parties to deal with due to the AC disparity.
I like the changes to Grapple etc, it turns grappling into a valid option now, previously you grappled someone and there was no benefit to trying to break the grapple vs just hitting the person holding you (or someone else next to you).
So yes you can have your opinion on improvements, but, make them constructive to the material that is presented rather then a blanket "I don't like it" try and explain mechanically why you don't like it.
I did watch the video. I thought about it. I still don't agree with everything.
If I wanted to homebrew everything I'd make my own game.
For half-races I would then use my suggestion of treating it like backgrounds and use half-elf and half-orc as example. Still lets people create any mix but uses the two classic examples people know as a way to build your own.
I feel the fact that it really if just picking one race and adding cosmetic changes from the other is a disservice. It just says half the choice is just flavor.
So we both agree that the half species as written now is not enough and needs tweaks. We don't know at this point if they will add more or keep it as the same. So it is a good time to discuss it and bring it up. Also good to discuss it amongst ourselves as it might help when we bring it further,
As for crits it is going to depend on the creature for me. My party often fights people. So a crit by the guards might make sense. A dragon has so much going on that a crit doesn't matter. Something attacking with a weapon that a human could use is different. Showing that a Kobold can get a lucky shot in
I certainly agree that the concept of pick a race and alter it cosmetically is less than ideal. I don't exactly want a completely modular race system, but having a few traits that can be swapped out from one race to another for bi-racial mechanics would be better than "just play and Elf that looks kind of like an Orc".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Kobolds, goblins, bandits, and all the rest can get lucky shots in. Natural 20s are still automatic hits on attack rolls. They're just not crits. A bandit doesn't suddenly get to deal 15d6 damage because it rolled a nat 20 on the die, but it does get to hit even the 27AC Legendary Paladin. For all the good it will do that particular bandit.
Please do not contact or message me.
Isn't that the entire point behind the hue and cry and ugly outrage at monsters not being able to crit? That DMs can't just instantly Chunky Salsa a PC at a whim because they feel the PCs haven't suffered enough character deaths this session yet, Paul's still got two whole backup sheets from the weekend's character sweatshop session?
Please do not contact or message me.
But the player gets to do 15d6 because they roll a 20.
But you would have no problem with that bandit having recharge abilities.
Not talking bandit #5 we're talking named nemesis of one of the player characters who are having a duel.
Don’t crits just do double damage not including STR modifier? That means that bandit chieftain does more than 7d6 base damage.
No, it now does weapon damage only twice. If your weapon does 1d6 damage you role another d6. So not double damage. You could role two ones for damage
s. 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; you roll the damage dice of the Weapon or Unarmed Strike a second time and add the second roll as extra damage to the target. For example, a Mace deals Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you score a Critical Hit with the Mace, it instead deals 2d6 + your Strength modifier
This has been my experience too. I feel crit change is actually pretty good because of the loss of the spikes, but I also feel inspiration just needs to go away. It is just too much advantage too often. It got forgotten before, and now it is just almost always on. I used it to give myself advantage on a concentration check to maintain a powerful spell that was helping in the encounter just to nearly guarantee that I didn't lose concentration with a +2 to con. Another player rolls a 20 later and just gifts it back to me because we all recognized that we didn't want me losing concentration on the spell and they were saving theirs for a saving throw or a later skill check instead of attacking, because of all the ways we have to gain advantage on attacks when working together.
The fight didn't feel as epic as it should, or as nail biting as it should. Not because I knew the monsters couldn't crit, but because I wasn't worried about losing concentration on a great spell because I got advantage on it the one time I was stuck in melee. The other players weren't worried about their con saves or their dex saves because advantage for that was always at their finger tips on demand.
What I find there's always something imperfect with the editions. It works, but there's always something missing. Personally I don't think it's really a void that could be filled. What most folks need a break from dnd and a fresh campaign when they return. 5th edition is okay, just need a few tweaks now and then. Maybe better lore that made sense, a new world explore, or a willingness to try different playstyles. Dnd one feels like a complete unnecessary overhaul to a decent edition.
One thing they really need to do is hire a good editor to put together the new versions of the PHB so that you can actually find things. Some of the rules (particularly around spellcasting) are scattered throughout the book at present with no real thought as to how the information can be located.
For example one of my players wanted to figure out how many spells his wizard could know. You would think it would be in the Spellcasting chapter, right? Nope...it's buried in the middle of a paragraph in the Wizard class description. Not highlighted or broken out from the main text in any way.
And don't get me started on how useless the index is...
That's one of the big problems with organization, actually - there is no 'right' decision. As one example, I cannot think of any reason at all that the number of spells a wizard can know would be in the Spellcasting general rules - that information belongs in the Wizard class description for me and nowhere else. It would be unneeded clutter in the Spellcasting rules. You and I have two very different, yet still valid, interpretations of where the information should be, which makes it impossible for Wizards to get that right, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
OMG THIS so hard. The index in the DMG and PHB (especially) the PHB are almost useless. It's maddening that they don't just list the page numbers for the redundant/duplicative entries, instead forcing you to keep flipping for the "right" entry.
The folks on r/dndmemes would be so relieved by this if they could read...
This is not correct. There are no stock backgrounds. The default method is build your own, and the samples are just there to show you what is possible. They even state the samples are just inspiration and that you should change the sample backgrounds to fit your needs.