I'm all for natural 20 being a success in all d20 tests. I love the idea of miraculously making a saving throw against the odds just as much as I like the idea of miraculously landing a weapon attack against the odds.
I'm all for natural 20 being a success in all d20 tests. I love the idea of miraculously making a saving throw against the odds just as much as I like the idea of miraculously landing a weapon attack against the odds.
I don't mind the auto success/failure rules for Attacks and Saving throws, just not Skills.
I don't mind the auto success/failure rules for Attacks and Saving throws, just not Skills.
This is completely fair. I like the idea that if I want to make a REALLY hard skill check, but not impossible, I can just tell someone "You'll need to roll a natural 20 to make this work." And as has been said, if it's an impossible attempt, we just don't roll for it. Likewise, I enjoy the idea of the master rogue attempting to hide under the perfect circumstances and everyone else in the room is like, "What the hell are you doing? We can clearly see you."
For me, rolling the dice is most fun when the outcome is less certain.
I don't mind the auto success/failure rules for Attacks and Saving throws, just not Skills.
This is completely fair. I like the idea that if I want to make a REALLY hard skill check, but not impossible, I can just tell someone "You'll need to roll a natural 20 to make this work." And as has been said, if it's an impossible attempt, we just don't roll for it. Likewise, I enjoy the idea of the master rogue attempting to hide under the perfect circumstances and everyone else in the room is like, "What the hell are you doing? We can clearly see you."
For me, rolling the dice is most fun when the outcome is less certain.
I just don't feel that skills are that binary (success/failure) most of the time. For example, if a character has a +11 to their skill check to do a performance, the outcome isn't can you do it, but how well did you do it. A 12 isn't too bad, a 16 is pretty darn good, a 31 is Amazing! All of them could be considered a success, but for the story the degree of success (or failure) makes for a more interesting outcome than a simple you succeeded (or you failed).
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
Please remember that this is a playtest, so when the feedback opens up next month you will all have a chance to provide your (hopefully constructive and specific) feedback. As for the points raised:
1. Easy enough to live with. As a DM I've found that there are enough options and flexibility to put a suitable test in front of the players. There's nothing to prevent a DM playing with the stats of a monster.
2. Not sure on this one. I would remove the human feature of Inspiration automatically after a Long Rest though.
3. Not a problem. A player asks for something clearly ridiculous? They simply don't get to roll. End of story.
4. There are plenty of ways to make death an ever-present risk facing the PCs. Having said that, I do feel that D&D is more fun when DMs and PCs are building a narrative rather than simply seeing if the players can survive. Others may have different opinions.
5. They haven't stated that they are removing class based spells. We haven't had any UA on classes yet, so this isn't a statement that makes any sense at present. We shall have to see.
Regarding the skill checks - you can ask people to make rolls even if there is no chance of success - they may critically fail.
In 5e there is already mechanisims for success or failure by margines. e.g. climbing - you fail by 5 or more you fall, you fail by 5 or less no movement. Same can be said for disabling a device. Failing on the skill check by 5 or more the device activates, failing by 4 or less you make no progress.
I dont mind so much the gaining of inspiration by humans or on a natural 20 - remember on a long rest in the play test rules all inspiration is lost. Just make sure your players only roll when you deam that they should. Use more passive perceptions, even passive investigations..etc. For instance when the party enter a room say what they see based off their passive.
The monsters not being able to crit - as far as what I can see with the rulkes is just plain unfair. Monsters should be able to crit. THough remember players can only crit melee weapon damage - not sneak attack or smite or anything else - so its not that bad.
I'm still not convinced that the class UA won't include wording for sneak attack and/or divine smite saying that the damage counts as weapon damage for the purposes of critical hits.
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
1. I have no problem with removing monster crits, I hardly used them to begin with. I often modified monsters anyways to give them more flavor, giving them "Monster abilities" much as Mathew Coville has addressed in his videos. The fact that in the interview they hint at more coming with the removal of crits from monsters, the refresh skills, and other things, along with hints at adjustments to spells and skills for the removal of crits just has me waiting. its like judging a car just because you saw the bumper.
2. Inspiration on a nat 20, why not, it'll get the Inspiration actually being used instead of hoarded, and who wouldn't get inspired because they just did an awesome job, just makes sense.
3. Mostly used this anyways, but again, I didn't let players role if there wasn't a chance for success, but that was setup in the description or the explanation, but there are also a multitude of definitions of Success, just cause you roll a 20 to seduce the dragon doesn't mean you actually do, but you may succeed in changing their opinion.
4. Sounds like a personal observation, while they have adjusted rules, I don't feel that they have made it more about player survival, that is all on the DM and the setup you run. There are still many thing you can toss at players that can wipe them out, just because they adjusted the rules and difficulty settings for creatures to make it easier to create events and encounters, you are still the one who sets it up. What I see is them trying to make the game easier to get new players playing and understanding by simplifying complex rules that for some, take the fun out of the game. How difficult the encounter is, well, that's on the DM, not on the books.
5. Again, they haven't removed the class based spells, they have reorganized, and even then, as they said in both the interview and document, this is just the start so don't get all up in arms because you ain't seen nothing yet. Again, judging the meal from just a picture, lets get more of the food out on the table before going to hog wild with the complaints.
All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic, I can see some of the reasoning for the changes, and am intrigued on how they will play out. I've been playing and DM'ing since the red box, change is nothing new with this game, and getting all up in arms because you have seen a couple pages of Books worth of changes is not only pointless but a waste of energy. Remember the first and only rule of any TTRPG, its your game, they aren't rules they are guidelines, use them or don't, that's your choice. just like some people are still playing AD&D, and some are still playing 3.5, use what you want or don't, its your game. I'm willing to see it through, because over the years, I have seen controversial changes actually end up being for the better of the game.
Regarding the skill checks - you can ask people to make rolls even if there is no chance of success - they may critically fail.
In 5e there is already mechanisims for success or failure by margines. e.g. climbing - you fail by 5 or more you fall, you fail by 5 or less no movement. Same can be said for disabling a device. Failing on the skill check by 5 or more the device activates, failing by 4 or less you make no progress.
I dont mind so much the gaining of inspiration by humans or on a natural 20 - remember on a long rest in the play test rules all inspiration is lost. Just make sure your players only roll when you deam that they should. Use more passive perceptions, even passive investigations..etc. For instance when the party enter a room say what they see based off their passive.
The monsters not being able to crit - as far as what I can see with the rulkes is just plain unfair. Monsters should be able to crit. THough remember players can only crit melee weapon damage - not sneak attack or smite or anything else - so its not that bad.
I honestly think the crit rules shouldn't change... for either player or monster. All the crit rules do is make it so that it's sad if you roll a crit on a class that doesn't crit anymore, not to mention unless they are going to be touching on some other weapon balances it makes playing only certain martial classes anyways (after all Im assuming you can't crit off unarmed strikes, and they would argue that it's okay because of the new unarmed strikes grapple rules).
Straight from the UA material: "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."
Whoever wrote that particular paragraph really needs to go back and re-read what they wrote. And both them, and whoever let it get published, need to have that paper shoved in their face and held there until they can see the problem that's blatantly obvious with it.
However, tearing apart the contradiction in that statement is still ignoring the real issue I have with it: Disallowing crits on spells with attack rolls is like handing someone a gun loaded with only blanks and telling them to defend themselves from a pack of wolves.
Hypothetical time: Let's say one makes it to 5th level, right? What can a 5th level caster do?
The most powerful 3rd level spell I can think of, would be Inflict Wounds (The 1st level spell) at 3rd level. At a staggering 50 damage. Which, yes, is quite a lot for a 5th level character to do in a single turn . . . but, that's assuming all 5 d10s roll a 10. A crit, of course, doubling that. So, yeah, 100 possible damage per turn is pretty obscene. But, it's the ONLY spell I know of that's even remotely that . . . extra.
A 5th level fighter, on the other hand, with a non-magical longsword, 2-handed: 1d10+STR Mod. They get 2 attacks at 5th level. Both of those can crit. So, (2d10 + STR Mod) X 2. Without a crit, it's 20-30. With a crit it's between 40 and 50.
If we're basing the damage output of the two archetypes of characters on that, then sure, they're pretty close . . . But name me another spell that's as overkill as Inflict Wounds. Another spell with an attack roll, anyway.
How many martial classes get multiple attacks per turn? All of them, last I knew. How many casters get the same? None. How many casting classes can take Inflict Wounds? Clerics. Clerics are the only class, though College of Lore Bards can also snag it thanks to that subclass feature of theirs.
So, either someone really needs to review what they're meaning to say with this, or there needs to be some provision for, perhaps, casters getting multiple spell-attacks in a turn.
(I'm trying to withhold my judgement of the UA as a whole until I've seen more than just the bare-bones we've been given, but some of it really makes me question just what Wizards devs are thinking, and if they've ever actually sat down to play the game they've been making rules for.)
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
I don't really have problems with any of this.
1. This one just seems intentionally contrarian. No crits means they're too weak but a recharge ability makes them OP and power-creeped? Did you get a secret copy of these recharge powers that we haven't seen? Basically all this sounds like to me is that DMs essentially have a "crit-on-demand" option that they can choose to use based on how they characterize the enemy or how they want to pace the fight.
2. Again, this is an extremely negative view of a very basic aspect of gaming - you randomly roll high, you get a reward. Why is inspiration any more of a "cookie" than extra damage? Considering the number of people complaining about spells not being able to crit, I would say yes, people absolutely want a cookie. Cookies are delicious and I pity those who think they're somehow too cool or mature to enjoy them.
3. I see this as just teaching DMs to play how they should have been playing all along. If something is impossible you don't call for a roll in the first place. Period. Alternately, success is what the DM deems it to be. A critical success on "I ask the King to give me his crown" is that the king just sees it as a joke and doesn't have you executed.
4. This is just bizarre to me as TPKing a party has always been extremely easy and I don't see how the new rules change this. DMs have unlimited power and you can throw anything you want at a party. The D&D police aren't going to show up at your door if you set down a monster with a CR beyond whatever the encounter calculator recommends. Even if you only play modules, just throwing in another copy of a monster or two is the easiest thing in the world to do.
5. Class-based spells being removed is an assumption unless I missed it in the video. The general spell lists exist as references for other features, for example "Magic Initiate (Divine)." Classes will still have their own lists.
It seems to me the people with the biggest problems with the playtest material are the same people who hated 4e and hated 5e when it came out and are just recycling the same "I'm old-school" complaints that they used then. All I can say is that if you haven't played "a real game of D&D" since 2nd edition, go play 2nd edition. The resources are out there and there are plenty of like-minded folks.
A 5th level fighter, on the other hand, with a non-magical longsword, 2-handed: 1d10+STR Mod. They get 2 attacks at 5th level. Both of those can crit. So, (2d10 + STR Mod) X 2. Without a crit, it's 20-30. With a crit it's between 40 and 50.
These numbers don't add up. Assuming 2 attacks both hit (they don't always, but since you seem to be assuming all attacks hit for your example, I'll continue with that math vs my typical estimate that only 75% of attacks hit), and assuming a +4 STR bonus, we're doing 2d10+8 damage. That's a range of 10-28, not 20-30, with an average dpr of 18. Also you don't double ability score bonuses on a crit, only the dice, so if by some miracle our fighter crits BOTH attacks in a round (eye-roll) we're now doing 12-48 damage, with an average of 30.
Compare this to our 5th level wizard who blithely tosses a fireball for 8d6 damage to everything in a 20' radius sphere. at the low end, the Wizard only does 8 to each target, but can hit 48 on the high end, and averages 28 damage *per target*, which for a fireball is at least 3 or 4 guys, or you wouldn't cast it. Even if one or two save and only take half, the Wizard is still embarrassing the fighter for damage output on that spell.
And I don't consider Fireball to be one of the most effective things a wizard can be using a spell slot on. Sleet Storm is a devastating effect on an absolutely enormous area. Hypnotic Pattern literally removes half of the enemies from an average encounter while you kill the other half. Bards and Druids can use heat metal to do quite high damage to an enemy every turn, or force them to drop a weapon or take off their armor. And have you ever played in an encounter with a Cleric who cast Spirit Guardians?
I don't really understand how you think Fighter damage is even competitive with what casters can pump out, let alone better.
By limiting the conversation to spells that have attack rolls, you're just willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of spells *don't*, and that's kind of the point. But let's go ahead and play that game (all spells cast with a level 3 slot):
Scorching Ray: 2-12 (average 7) damage x 4 rays = 8-48 damage, with an average dpr of 28, divided as you please among 1-4 targets
Chromatic Orb: 5-40 damage (avg 23) and you get to cherry pick the damage type to match a creature's vulnerability
Melf's Acid Arrow: 8-32 damage (avg 21), split over two turns...also keep in mind that even if you miss with this spell you still get to do at least some damage)
Ray of Sickness: 4-32 damage (avg 19) AND the target is poisoned until your next turn comes around.
Meanwhile, our cleric can do 5-50 damage (avg 28) with Inflict Wounds as you said, but also can hang back and blast someone for 6-36 damage (avg 21) with Guiding Bolt and ALSO give one of our allies advantage on their next attack.
So all of these spells do better average damage than a fighter who doesn't crit, and in the case of Scorching Ray the damage is competitive with a Fighter critting twice in one round (which would happen 0.25% of the time, or 1/400 turns, possibly more if we're getting advantage a lot). Also with the exception of Inflict Wounds, they're all doing it from safely at range. AND, with the exception of Acid Arrow and Inflict Wounds, they're all going above simple damage to a single target and offering other benefits. And again, these aren't even the best options our casters have, when they can lay down huge AoE effects, impose debilitating status conditions, or otherwise completely shift the tactical landscape of a battle with their spells that don't strictly rely on an attack roll.
Casters are fine, even without crits, they're still leagues ahead of martial characters in terms of power.
Disallowing crits on spells with attack rolls is like handing someone a gun loaded with only blanks and telling them to defend themselves from a pack of wolves.
What? What's with people in this thread saying the most wildly absurd things with so much confidence?
Most spells can't even crit. Even the ones that do, most of the time it's one roll per round, so spellcasters aren't great at fishing for critical hits. Even if it's all you do (which it just isn't for most spellcasters) you won't crit that often. The odds are stacked against you.
If your entire gameplan revolves around landing that one crit... you're already dead because 19 out of 20 rounds that didn't happen.
It'd be fair to argue that crits are cool and fun and you're sad to see them go, but acting like it singlehandedly ruins any character is just... not realistic.
The current rules in 5e for Nat 20/1 in skill checks and saves is an optional rule to have a 20 or 1 mean something special if they succeed or fail after all bonuses are applied but not automatically succeed or fail.
For backwards compatibility and to accommodate people with exceptional or poor skills, I'll probably stick with 5e rules until Codename 1D&D UA comes up with something better.
As always, allowing a Dwarf fighter to flap his arms to avoid falling to his death just because he rolled two nat 20s in a row is a mistake on the part of the DM. The DMs I know would describe the Dwarf flailing as he fell without any roll if that was what the player decided to try to do. With current actual 5e rules, a nat 20 wouldn't mean success anyway, but it could mean a spectacular failure with optional 5e rules. For that 5% possibility of a glorious death, I might have allowed them to roll with the promise that it's just not going to work.
TBF, I don't think I (or the DMs I know) would have put the players in that situation of an insta-death with no way out. That's no fun.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
So, something that hasn't been brought up yet: size. I really don't understand the purpose of making small/medium-sized a choice in character creation for humans, ardlings, and tieflings. I know, in the video it's mentioned that it's because there are small people in the real world. That makes very little sense to me... for several reasons:
The average adult human is between 5-6 feet in height (Medium size in D&D). Are there "small" people in the world? Sure, but (and I apologize for any implied offense, here) having a genetic condition that renders one smaller that your contemporaries brings with it a lot of challenges. I'm not sure what the "small" size category gets a character. If this is an attempt to make D&D more accessible to as wide an audience as possible, then just make "size" at character creation a descriptive element, not a mechanical one.
If "small" is a choice amongst human-based critters, why isn't it available among all creatures? Make it consistent.
There is no mechanical difference between small and medium in character creation. But there certainly is in combat, specifically in grappling and/or shoving. A small-sized creature is certainly at a disadvantage in these scenarios as compared to a medium-sized.
Grapple. The target is Grappled, and the grapple’s escape DC equals 8 + your Strength modifier + your Proficiency Bonus. This grapple is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you and if you have a hand free to grab the target. Shove. You either push the target 5 feet away or knock the target Prone. This shove is possible only if the target is no more than one Size larger than you.
Now, since I'm on the subject of "small" characters, why the move to make every race's speed an equal 30-ft.? It seems like this is more streamlining to make the game needlessly simple. Still, considering there were really no bonuses inherent in the 2014 rules for smaller characters (like improved AC in v3.0 & v3.5), I suppose size is becoming less and less of a distinguishing trait in modern D&D. Which is fine. I wonder how this might eventually affect "large" and larger creatures?
Being able to move through the spaces of large creatures, as there needs to be a two size difference to do this.
Possible benefits DM dependant:
Being able to squeeze through spaces a medium creatures couldn't fit. (Baring plasmoids and other special features etc.) Or similarly fitting into smaller hiding places.
Maybe gaining additional cover. Say something gives a medium height creature 1/2 cover, but a small creature 3/4 cover to stand behind.
Lighter for purposes of being carried if injured etc.
I think I figured out part of what's hitting me wrong with this upcoming edition.
For one angle, it looks like some agency is being taken away from the DM discretion. When I looked at it in that frame of reference, things started to appear like WotC doesn't trust the DM to do the job or is designing it so a computer can do the job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Above, it looks like some people don't like the new Inspiration mechanic. For me, I like it a lot. My table never used Inspiration (or used it rarely) because it felt very arbitrary and potentially biased, completely at the DM's discretion. Now there is a mechanic for it... I'm no longer in the position to be presumed to be showing favoritism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm all for natural 20 being a success in all d20 tests. I love the idea of miraculously making a saving throw against the odds just as much as I like the idea of miraculously landing a weapon attack against the odds.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't mind the auto success/failure rules for Attacks and Saving throws, just not Skills.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is completely fair. I like the idea that if I want to make a REALLY hard skill check, but not impossible, I can just tell someone "You'll need to roll a natural 20 to make this work." And as has been said, if it's an impossible attempt, we just don't roll for it. Likewise, I enjoy the idea of the master rogue attempting to hide under the perfect circumstances and everyone else in the room is like, "What the hell are you doing? We can clearly see you."
For me, rolling the dice is most fun when the outcome is less certain.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I just don't feel that skills are that binary (success/failure) most of the time. For example, if a character has a +11 to their skill check to do a performance, the outcome isn't can you do it, but how well did you do it. A 12 isn't too bad, a 16 is pretty darn good, a 31 is Amazing! All of them could be considered a success, but for the story the degree of success (or failure) makes for a more interesting outcome than a simple you succeeded (or you failed).
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You should continue doing that with the new rules.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Please remember that this is a playtest, so when the feedback opens up next month you will all have a chance to provide your (hopefully constructive and specific) feedback. As for the points raised:
1. Easy enough to live with. As a DM I've found that there are enough options and flexibility to put a suitable test in front of the players. There's nothing to prevent a DM playing with the stats of a monster.
2. Not sure on this one. I would remove the human feature of Inspiration automatically after a Long Rest though.
3. Not a problem. A player asks for something clearly ridiculous? They simply don't get to roll. End of story.
4. There are plenty of ways to make death an ever-present risk facing the PCs. Having said that, I do feel that D&D is more fun when DMs and PCs are building a narrative rather than simply seeing if the players can survive. Others may have different opinions.
5. They haven't stated that they are removing class based spells. We haven't had any UA on classes yet, so this isn't a statement that makes any sense at present. We shall have to see.
Regarding the skill checks - you can ask people to make rolls even if there is no chance of success - they may critically fail.
In 5e there is already mechanisims for success or failure by margines. e.g. climbing - you fail by 5 or more you fall, you fail by 5 or less no movement. Same can be said for disabling a device. Failing on the skill check by 5 or more the device activates, failing by 4 or less you make no progress.
I dont mind so much the gaining of inspiration by humans or on a natural 20 - remember on a long rest in the play test rules all inspiration is lost. Just make sure your players only roll when you deam that they should. Use more passive perceptions, even passive investigations..etc. For instance when the party enter a room say what they see based off their passive.
The monsters not being able to crit - as far as what I can see with the rulkes is just plain unfair. Monsters should be able to crit. THough remember players can only crit melee weapon damage - not sneak attack or smite or anything else - so its not that bad.
Some are born to move the world,
To live their fantasies.
But most of us just dream about,
The things we'd like to be.
- Rush
I'm still not convinced that the class UA won't include wording for sneak attack and/or divine smite saying that the damage counts as weapon damage for the purposes of critical hits.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
1. I have no problem with removing monster crits, I hardly used them to begin with. I often modified monsters anyways to give them more flavor, giving them "Monster abilities" much as Mathew Coville has addressed in his videos. The fact that in the interview they hint at more coming with the removal of crits from monsters, the refresh skills, and other things, along with hints at adjustments to spells and skills for the removal of crits just has me waiting. its like judging a car just because you saw the bumper.
2. Inspiration on a nat 20, why not, it'll get the Inspiration actually being used instead of hoarded, and who wouldn't get inspired because they just did an awesome job, just makes sense.
3. Mostly used this anyways, but again, I didn't let players role if there wasn't a chance for success, but that was setup in the description or the explanation, but there are also a multitude of definitions of Success, just cause you roll a 20 to seduce the dragon doesn't mean you actually do, but you may succeed in changing their opinion.
4. Sounds like a personal observation, while they have adjusted rules, I don't feel that they have made it more about player survival, that is all on the DM and the setup you run. There are still many thing you can toss at players that can wipe them out, just because they adjusted the rules and difficulty settings for creatures to make it easier to create events and encounters, you are still the one who sets it up. What I see is them trying to make the game easier to get new players playing and understanding by simplifying complex rules that for some, take the fun out of the game. How difficult the encounter is, well, that's on the DM, not on the books.
5. Again, they haven't removed the class based spells, they have reorganized, and even then, as they said in both the interview and document, this is just the start so don't get all up in arms because you ain't seen nothing yet. Again, judging the meal from just a picture, lets get more of the food out on the table before going to hog wild with the complaints.
All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic, I can see some of the reasoning for the changes, and am intrigued on how they will play out. I've been playing and DM'ing since the red box, change is nothing new with this game, and getting all up in arms because you have seen a couple pages of Books worth of changes is not only pointless but a waste of energy. Remember the first and only rule of any TTRPG, its your game, they aren't rules they are guidelines, use them or don't, that's your choice. just like some people are still playing AD&D, and some are still playing 3.5, use what you want or don't, its your game. I'm willing to see it through, because over the years, I have seen controversial changes actually end up being for the better of the game.
I honestly think the crit rules shouldn't change... for either player or monster. All the crit rules do is make it so that it's sad if you roll a crit on a class that doesn't crit anymore, not to mention unless they are going to be touching on some other weapon balances it makes playing only certain martial classes anyways (after all Im assuming you can't crit off unarmed strikes, and they would argue that it's okay because of the new unarmed strikes grapple rules).
Whoever wrote that particular paragraph really needs to go back and re-read what they wrote. And both them, and whoever let it get published, need to have that paper shoved in their face and held there until they can see the problem that's blatantly obvious with it.
However, tearing apart the contradiction in that statement is still ignoring the real issue I have with it: Disallowing crits on spells with attack rolls is like handing someone a gun loaded with only blanks and telling them to defend themselves from a pack of wolves.
Hypothetical time: Let's say one makes it to 5th level, right? What can a 5th level caster do?
The most powerful 3rd level spell I can think of, would be Inflict Wounds (The 1st level spell) at 3rd level. At a staggering 50 damage. Which, yes, is quite a lot for a 5th level character to do in a single turn . . . but, that's assuming all 5 d10s roll a 10. A crit, of course, doubling that. So, yeah, 100 possible damage per turn is pretty obscene. But, it's the ONLY spell I know of that's even remotely that . . . extra.
A 5th level fighter, on the other hand, with a non-magical longsword, 2-handed: 1d10+STR Mod. They get 2 attacks at 5th level. Both of those can crit. So, (2d10 + STR Mod) X 2. Without a crit, it's 20-30. With a crit it's between 40 and 50.
If we're basing the damage output of the two archetypes of characters on that, then sure, they're pretty close . . . But name me another spell that's as overkill as Inflict Wounds. Another spell with an attack roll, anyway.
How many martial classes get multiple attacks per turn? All of them, last I knew. How many casters get the same? None. How many casting classes can take Inflict Wounds? Clerics. Clerics are the only class, though College of Lore Bards can also snag it thanks to that subclass feature of theirs.
So, either someone really needs to review what they're meaning to say with this, or there needs to be some provision for, perhaps, casters getting multiple spell-attacks in a turn.
(I'm trying to withhold my judgement of the UA as a whole until I've seen more than just the bare-bones we've been given, but some of it really makes me question just what Wizards devs are thinking, and if they've ever actually sat down to play the game they've been making rules for.)
I don't really have problems with any of this.
1. This one just seems intentionally contrarian. No crits means they're too weak but a recharge ability makes them OP and power-creeped? Did you get a secret copy of these recharge powers that we haven't seen? Basically all this sounds like to me is that DMs essentially have a "crit-on-demand" option that they can choose to use based on how they characterize the enemy or how they want to pace the fight.
2. Again, this is an extremely negative view of a very basic aspect of gaming - you randomly roll high, you get a reward. Why is inspiration any more of a "cookie" than extra damage? Considering the number of people complaining about spells not being able to crit, I would say yes, people absolutely want a cookie. Cookies are delicious and I pity those who think they're somehow too cool or mature to enjoy them.
3. I see this as just teaching DMs to play how they should have been playing all along. If something is impossible you don't call for a roll in the first place. Period. Alternately, success is what the DM deems it to be. A critical success on "I ask the King to give me his crown" is that the king just sees it as a joke and doesn't have you executed.
4. This is just bizarre to me as TPKing a party has always been extremely easy and I don't see how the new rules change this. DMs have unlimited power and you can throw anything you want at a party. The D&D police aren't going to show up at your door if you set down a monster with a CR beyond whatever the encounter calculator recommends. Even if you only play modules, just throwing in another copy of a monster or two is the easiest thing in the world to do.
5. Class-based spells being removed is an assumption unless I missed it in the video. The general spell lists exist as references for other features, for example "Magic Initiate (Divine)." Classes will still have their own lists.
It seems to me the people with the biggest problems with the playtest material are the same people who hated 4e and hated 5e when it came out and are just recycling the same "I'm old-school" complaints that they used then. All I can say is that if you haven't played "a real game of D&D" since 2nd edition, go play 2nd edition. The resources are out there and there are plenty of like-minded folks.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
These numbers don't add up. Assuming 2 attacks both hit (they don't always, but since you seem to be assuming all attacks hit for your example, I'll continue with that math vs my typical estimate that only 75% of attacks hit), and assuming a +4 STR bonus, we're doing 2d10+8 damage. That's a range of 10-28, not 20-30, with an average dpr of 18. Also you don't double ability score bonuses on a crit, only the dice, so if by some miracle our fighter crits BOTH attacks in a round (eye-roll) we're now doing 12-48 damage, with an average of 30.
Compare this to our 5th level wizard who blithely tosses a fireball for 8d6 damage to everything in a 20' radius sphere. at the low end, the Wizard only does 8 to each target, but can hit 48 on the high end, and averages 28 damage *per target*, which for a fireball is at least 3 or 4 guys, or you wouldn't cast it. Even if one or two save and only take half, the Wizard is still embarrassing the fighter for damage output on that spell.
And I don't consider Fireball to be one of the most effective things a wizard can be using a spell slot on. Sleet Storm is a devastating effect on an absolutely enormous area. Hypnotic Pattern literally removes half of the enemies from an average encounter while you kill the other half. Bards and Druids can use heat metal to do quite high damage to an enemy every turn, or force them to drop a weapon or take off their armor. And have you ever played in an encounter with a Cleric who cast Spirit Guardians?
I don't really understand how you think Fighter damage is even competitive with what casters can pump out, let alone better.
By limiting the conversation to spells that have attack rolls, you're just willfully ignoring the fact that the vast majority of spells *don't*, and that's kind of the point. But let's go ahead and play that game (all spells cast with a level 3 slot):
Scorching Ray: 2-12 (average 7) damage x 4 rays = 8-48 damage, with an average dpr of 28, divided as you please among 1-4 targets
Chromatic Orb: 5-40 damage (avg 23) and you get to cherry pick the damage type to match a creature's vulnerability
Melf's Acid Arrow: 8-32 damage (avg 21), split over two turns...also keep in mind that even if you miss with this spell you still get to do at least some damage)
Ray of Sickness: 4-32 damage (avg 19) AND the target is poisoned until your next turn comes around.
Meanwhile, our cleric can do 5-50 damage (avg 28) with Inflict Wounds as you said, but also can hang back and blast someone for 6-36 damage (avg 21) with Guiding Bolt and ALSO give one of our allies advantage on their next attack.
So all of these spells do better average damage than a fighter who doesn't crit, and in the case of Scorching Ray the damage is competitive with a Fighter critting twice in one round (which would happen 0.25% of the time, or 1/400 turns, possibly more if we're getting advantage a lot). Also with the exception of Inflict Wounds, they're all doing it from safely at range. AND, with the exception of Acid Arrow and Inflict Wounds, they're all going above simple damage to a single target and offering other benefits. And again, these aren't even the best options our casters have, when they can lay down huge AoE effects, impose debilitating status conditions, or otherwise completely shift the tactical landscape of a battle with their spells that don't strictly rely on an attack roll.
Casters are fine, even without crits, they're still leagues ahead of martial characters in terms of power.
What? What's with people in this thread saying the most wildly absurd things with so much confidence?
Most spells can't even crit. Even the ones that do, most of the time it's one roll per round, so spellcasters aren't great at fishing for critical hits. Even if it's all you do (which it just isn't for most spellcasters) you won't crit that often. The odds are stacked against you.
If your entire gameplan revolves around landing that one crit... you're already dead because 19 out of 20 rounds that didn't happen.
It'd be fair to argue that crits are cool and fun and you're sad to see them go, but acting like it singlehandedly ruins any character is just... not realistic.
The current rules in 5e for Nat 20/1 in skill checks and saves is an optional rule to have a 20 or 1 mean something special if they succeed or fail after all bonuses are applied but not automatically succeed or fail.
For backwards compatibility and to accommodate people with exceptional or poor skills, I'll probably stick with 5e rules until Codename 1D&D UA comes up with something better.
As always, allowing a Dwarf fighter to flap his arms to avoid falling to his death just because he rolled two nat 20s in a row is a mistake on the part of the DM. The DMs I know would describe the Dwarf flailing as he fell without any roll if that was what the player decided to try to do. With current actual 5e rules, a nat 20 wouldn't mean success anyway, but it could mean a spectacular failure with optional 5e rules. For that 5% possibility of a glorious death, I might have allowed them to roll with the promise that it's just not going to work.
TBF, I don't think I (or the DMs I know) would have put the players in that situation of an insta-death with no way out. That's no fun.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
So, something that hasn't been brought up yet: size. I really don't understand the purpose of making small/medium-sized a choice in character creation for humans, ardlings, and tieflings. I know, in the video it's mentioned that it's because there are small people in the real world. That makes very little sense to me... for several reasons:
Now, since I'm on the subject of "small" characters, why the move to make every race's speed an equal 30-ft.? It seems like this is more streamlining to make the game needlessly simple. Still, considering there were really no bonuses inherent in the 2014 rules for smaller characters (like improved AC in v3.0 & v3.5), I suppose size is becoming less and less of a distinguishing trait in modern D&D. Which is fine. I wonder how this might eventually affect "large" and larger creatures?
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
As far as possible advantages to being small:
The ability to ride medium sized mounts.
Being able to move through the spaces of large creatures, as there needs to be a two size difference to do this.
Possible benefits DM dependant:
Being able to squeeze through spaces a medium creatures couldn't fit. (Baring plasmoids and other special features etc.) Or similarly fitting into smaller hiding places.
Maybe gaining additional cover. Say something gives a medium height creature 1/2 cover, but a small creature 3/4 cover to stand behind.
Lighter for purposes of being carried if injured etc.
I think I figured out part of what's hitting me wrong with this upcoming edition.
For one angle, it looks like some agency is being taken away from the DM discretion. When I looked at it in that frame of reference, things started to appear like WotC doesn't trust the DM to do the job or is designing it so a computer can do the job.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Above, it looks like some people don't like the new Inspiration mechanic. For me, I like it a lot. My table never used Inspiration (or used it rarely) because it felt very arbitrary and potentially biased, completely at the DM's discretion. Now there is a mechanic for it... I'm no longer in the position to be presumed to be showing favoritism.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."