I made the tragic error of forgetting to submit my feedback on the first playtest UA (Character Origins) so I decided to start this thread to, at the very least, somewhat temper my disappointment in myself.
Let me first say that I felt mostly positive about it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that my criticisms aren't really based on, "Oh my god, they're ruining D&D!" but rather a level of disappointment that, given this uniquely positive period of D&D fandom (and yes, I do think that, in the aggregate, it's a mostly positive era in terms of player engagement, happiness and general attitude and levels of toxicity), they didn't go far enough with their changes. This is perhaps an unfair evaluation given that it's the first round of feedback so they undoubtedly didn't want to enrage anyone by making any 'brave' decisions, but I do feel it was somewhat of a lost opportunity to have been a bit more... adventurous.
Of the criticisms I have, in this general vein, I'll concentrate on here so as to not muddy the waters or get bogged down in what I would consider nitpicking. YMMV.
Here goes:
Critical Success & Failure
I am of the belief that all 'tests' should use the natural crit and failure rule... with some caveats. The first being that a DM must always have the ability to say, "No, you can't do a test for that, it's impossible." Having a flat 5% chance of success at anything is untenable.
The second is more of a stylistic thing where I feel that the binary pass/fail mechanic has always been a bit of a frustration. I feel that there needs to be grades of failure and success. So 'pass/fail, but by how much?' This could be kept as an alternate or 'advanced' rule but would actually be very simple to implement. You don't have to make the graduation unique to each roll with math-in-the-moment. Just use the tiers that already exist, i.e Easy, Medium, Hard. For instance, let's say an enemy has an AC of 18. So they sit within the Medium (15) to Hard (20) range. If an attack that hits gets in the Very Hard (25) range, then maybe add +1 point of damage (I'm spitballing here just to give an idea of possibility, not suggesting that be the actual mechanic) because they succeeded by one tier more than they needed to. A roll of Easy (10), therefore, wouldn't just be a miss, it'd maybe add a +1 to hit against you for that opponent, the next time they attack. So not a fumble, just a miss that was bad enough it put you off balance or something.
This would also enhance descriptiveness of any test. "Oh, you rolled a total of 11 for your attack against AC 18? Wow, that's a whole tier lower than you needed. You swung too hard and pulled yourself out of balance, leaving an opening for Baron Von I'wanna'kill U. Not good."
You'd also have to add two more tiers, say Tragic (0) and Perfect (35) to accommodate extra bad failures and accomplishing the near impossible.
When it comes to natural 1's and 20's, you can also implement a similar mechanic simply by adding a second d20 roll. The higher on the tier the second roll is, without comparing to any target number, the closer to 'perfect' or 'tragic' it becomes. So you roll an Acrobatics test with a modifier of +12 and get a nat 20 on that quadruple spinning backflip over a blade barrier that is mind-controlled and moveable by a cosmic entity with preternatural precognitive ability, something given a target number of 30 to pull off, and you succeed, you roll again and get a 13 total, that puts you in the Easy (10) to Medium (15) range. So you succeeded well, just not fantastically, and so maybe only get a +1 on your Taunt DC when you land and say something smart-alecky to the cosmic entity on your way out the door.
Character Races
This is probably where my biggest criticisms lay. It's like, they were so close but stepped back just at the last moment before committing to something really great.
We've seen over the years that particular trends in races have solidified so that you can almost recognise a 'template' for each new race that comes out. We have so much of the 'same thing' presented as something new and different. This is potentially a very bad thing but doesn't have to be and, in fact, I think could be a really great thing if they adopted the same design philosophy as it looks like they have with the classes in the latest (Expert Classes) UA. That is to say, build races in a similar way. Something like, "Temporal", "Mystical," and "Primordial". Again, these aren't the categories I'm saying it should be, rather just an example to illustrate my meaning of what they could be like. In this example, Temporal races would be those like humans. They're not inherently magical but they also weren't born of the primordial chaos at the beginning of the universe. Whereas Mystical would be elves who have an inherently otherworldly nature to them, and the likes of tieflings would be Primordial whose blood connects them to other dimensions of reality.
And so you get basic templates for how to construct a race but you actually go further and say that races are only suggestions of how to construct a character. They form a basis rather than a stricture. So your average human would have the suggested characteristics within the Temporal build mechanic. This would be similar to saying a Ranger is within the Expert template, but instead of saying that a ranger can only be the things within the ranger class, you create a Feat like system, call it Talents or Traits or whatever you want, that you choose from to construct the character. This way you can have culturally suggested traits for a 'human' and even different ones, like say a Balduran from Baldur's Gate might have different suggested characteristics than a Thayan, and since they're only suggestions to reflect various cultural influences, no-one is bound to them, and so can swap and change to create their particular human character, from within the Temporal, not just human, template.
And those templates could then, much like how Feats are, be added to over time. Your Temporal character could be built using traits from the halfling and human suggested characteristics because they would probably both be within the Temporal framework. It would even be easy enough to create mixed origin characters by simply having a basic template for it so you could choose certain characteristics from two of the templates. This all sounds complex but assuming you balance them out like one does with Feats, it actually wouldn't be very complex. A for instance might be to say, "A mixed template has three mundane characteristics from either template and only one special characteristic from either template." So a half-elf might have Skilled and Metropolitan from the Temporal template, and Keen Senses from the Mystical template, both considered 'Mundane' characteristics and both from the Human and Elven suggested characteristics, but choose either Fey Ancestry from the Mystical or Resourceful from the Temporal, because those are considered 'Special' characteristics from those suggested racial characteristics.
Feats and Ability Scores
This is probably the closest I come to 'gripe' in my criticisms of this UA. I strongly believe that Ability Score Improvements should be entirely reworked. This is a bit of a cheat because I'm somewhat incorporating what I've seen in the latest UA because I was really disappointed that they went with what I suspected they would after having seen the feats in this (Character Origins) one.
My reasons are many but can mostly be summed up in the notion that an Ability Score Improvement is almost always the best option, mechanically. I know and understand that not everyone operates based on making the most optimal mechanical choices but the option within the system to choose is, in and of itself, part of the problem, because it opens up a disparity between those who do and those who don't. It creates an entirely unnecessary source of conflict as well as a sense of elitism, on both sides of the debate. This just doesn't have to be the case. We can all have our cake and eat it too if we just make the system... differently.
My suggestion for doing this is threefold:
1) Limit starting ability scores, even after bonuses, to 15. This serves multiple purposes because it flattens and broadens ability scores chosen at 1st-level and limits min-maxing. Most players will do their damndest to have a 16 in their primary class ability and there is no fault in that, in fact, I think under the current system, it's a bit silly not to in most cases. But it also means sacrificing to get a 16 in a secondary ability, like say Constitution for a fighter. You start getting cookie-cutter characters, i.e. the low Charisma and/or Intelligence fighters. It's just... a bit dull, to be honest. Flattening/broadening not only opens up more interesting character possibilities and options further down the track, without systemic penality for doing so, and not only makes such choices easy and therefore limits 'expertise' in character creation, but it also means a character is less prone to having profound gaps in potential. A low Charisma character will almost always be a low Charisma character. Few players, even the ones geared more toward roleplaying, will ever bump that statistic beyond the 8 they started with, which will mean they'll always be prone to Charisma-based tests. And that's fine if it's what a player wants, but when it's built into the system as being the obviously 'best' choice at character creation due to the 'need' to have higher scores, like for a paladin who is already struggling to get Strength/Constitution/Charisma high, then it creates an unnecessary tension. Setting a maximum of 15 after bonuses at creation doesn't really penalise anyone but it does set a more even playing field which benefits everyone right at the start and throughout the entire character's existence and player's playing experience.
2) Incorporate +1 bonuses to Primary ability scores into classes. A rogue's primary ability score is Dexterity. So at 2nd level, the Rogue gets +1 to Dexterity. And then another at 5th, 10th, 15th and finally a fifth at 20th. The first comes at 2nd level for what should be obvious reasons after having read #1. Five total bonuses gets a character to 20 by 20th-level, regardless of all other considerations. So a 20th-level rogue will always be really good at their core abilities, irrespective of any other factor. There's no disparity created between min-maxers and roleplayers or 'elite' players and novices. The class prioritises this primary ability for a reason and so they logically improve in it as they level up.
3) ALL Feats are created with a +1 Ability Score Improvement built into it as part of its balance and is related to the feat itself. So Actor gives a +1 to Charisma and improves the character's ability to act. Alert gets a +1 to Wisdom and gets balanced so it's on par with other feats. Luck gets obliterated by being thrown into a Supermassive Black Hole, etc. Oh, and since I'm cheating by having seen the Ability Score Improvement feat, yeah, that can go jump off a skyscraper as well.
This is where character differentiation can shine. Since your class is improving your core abilities, you don't have to choose between an ASI and 'something neat'. It also allows for multi-classing where you're splitting ability score improvements and so will want to choose a Feat that improves one or the other Primary ability that you're going to, otherwise, miss out on as you rise to 20th-level. And it just opens up a lot more fun builds where you might want to showcase Gronk's growing love of Acting, having started with that 8 Charisma, which he isn't going to get bumped from his 20 Barbarian Rage-Monster class levels. And then maybe he takes the Fighting Style: Fancy Footwork (again, I know this isn't a thing, it's just a hypothetical to help explain something), which also gives him a +1 Charisma. He'll never be as good as Mr. Bard (20), but he could get some character acting gigs here and there, support roles, maybe even roll a natural 20 once in a while to win an award, which makes for a much more fun and interesting character than just, "Me Gronk, smash!"
The exception to 2 and 3 would be if you already have a 20 in an ability score and receive a bonus from a Feat or Class level. Then... stick it wherever you want as a general rules exception.
Anyway, those are the thoughts I forgot to express in any way to WotC. Do with them as you will. I have cathartised it out of my system.
I made the tragic error of forgetting to submit my feedback on the first playtest UA (Character Origins) so I decided to start this thread to, at the very least, somewhat temper my disappointment in myself.
Let me first say that I felt mostly positive about it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that my criticisms aren't really based on, "Oh my god, they're ruining D&D!" but rather a level of disappointment that, given this uniquely positive period of D&D fandom (and yes, I do think that, in the aggregate, it's a mostly positive era in terms of player engagement, happiness and general attitude and levels of toxicity), they didn't go far enough with their changes. This is perhaps an unfair evaluation given that it's the first round of feedback so they undoubtedly didn't want to enrage anyone by making any 'brave' decisions, but I do feel it was somewhat of a lost opportunity to have been a bit more... adventurous.
Of the criticisms I have, in this general vein, I'll concentrate on here so as to not muddy the waters or get bogged down in what I would consider nitpicking. YMMV.
Here goes:
Critical Success & Failure
I am of the belief that all 'tests' should use the natural crit and failure rule... with some caveats. The first being that a DM must always have the ability to say, "No, you can't do a test for that, it's impossible." Having a flat 5% chance of success at anything is untenable.
The second is more of a stylistic thing where I feel that the binary pass/fail mechanic has always been a bit of a frustration. I feel that there needs to be grades of failure and success. So 'pass/fail, but by how much?' This could be kept as an alternate or 'advanced' rule but would actually be very simple to implement. You don't have to make the graduation unique to each roll with math-in-the-moment. Just use the tiers that already exist, i.e Easy, Medium, Hard. For instance, let's say an enemy has an AC of 18. So they sit within the Medium (15) to Hard (20) range. If an attack that hits gets in the Very Hard (25) range, then maybe add +1 point of damage (I'm spitballing here just to give an idea of possibility, not suggesting that be the actual mechanic) because they succeeded by one tier more than they needed to. A roll of Easy (10), therefore, wouldn't just be a miss, it'd maybe add a +1 to hit against you for that opponent, the next time they attack. So not a fumble, just a miss that was bad enough it put you off balance or something.
This would also enhance descriptiveness of any test. "Oh, you rolled a total of 11 for your attack against AC 18? Wow, that's a whole tier lower than you needed. You swung too hard and pulled yourself out of balance, leaving an opening for Baron Von I'wanna'kill U. Not good."
You'd also have to add two more tiers, say Tragic (0) and Perfect (35) to accommodate extra bad failures and accomplishing the near impossible.
When it comes to natural 1's and 20's, you can also implement a similar mechanic simply by adding a second d20 roll. The higher on the tier the second roll is, without comparing to any target number, the closer to 'perfect' or 'tragic' it becomes. So you roll an Acrobatics test with a modifier of +12 and get a nat 20 on that quadruple spinning backflip over a blade barrier that is mind-controlled and moveable by a cosmic entity with preternatural precognitive ability, something given a target number of 30 to pull off, and you succeed, you roll again and get a 13 total, that puts you in the Easy (10) to Medium (15) range. So you succeeded well, just not fantastically, and so maybe only get a +1 on your Taunt DC when you land and say something smart-alecky to the cosmic entity on your way out the door.
Character Races
This is probably where my biggest criticisms lay. It's like, they were so close but stepped back just at the last moment before committing to something really great.
We've seen over the years that particular trends in races have solidified so that you can almost recognise a 'template' for each new race that comes out. We have so much of the 'same thing' presented as something new and different. This is potentially a very bad thing but doesn't have to be and, in fact, I think could be a really great thing if they adopted the same design philosophy as it looks like they have with the classes in the latest (Expert Classes) UA. That is to say, build races in a similar way. Something like, "Temporal", "Mystical," and "Primordial". Again, these aren't the categories I'm saying it should be, rather just an example to illustrate my meaning of what they could be like. In this example, Temporal races would be those like humans. They're not inherently magical but they also weren't born of the primordial chaos at the beginning of the universe. Whereas Mystical would be elves who have an inherently otherworldly nature to them, and the likes of tieflings would be Primordial whose blood connects them to other dimensions of reality.
And so you get basic templates for how to construct a race but you actually go further and say that races are only suggestions of how to construct a character. They form a basis rather than a stricture. So your average human would have the suggested characteristics within the Temporal build mechanic. This would be similar to saying a Ranger is within the Expert template, but instead of saying that a ranger can only be the things within the ranger class, you create a Feat like system, call it Talents or Traits or whatever you want, that you choose from to construct the character. This way you can have culturally suggested traits for a 'human' and even different ones, like say a Balduran from Baldur's Gate might have different suggested characteristics than a Thayan, and since they're only suggestions to reflect various cultural influences, no-one is bound to them, and so can swap and change to create their particular human character, from within the Temporal, not just human, template.
And those templates could then, much like how Feats are, be added to over time. Your Temporal character could be built using traits from the halfling and human suggested characteristics because they would probably both be within the Temporal framework. It would even be easy enough to create mixed origin characters by simply having a basic template for it so you could choose certain characteristics from two of the templates. This all sounds complex but assuming you balance them out like one does with Feats, it actually wouldn't be very complex. A for instance might be to say, "A mixed template has three mundane characteristics from either template and only one special characteristic from either template." So a half-elf might have Skilled and Metropolitan from the Temporal template, and Keen Senses from the Mystical template, both considered 'Mundane' characteristics and both from the Human and Elven suggested characteristics, but choose either Fey Ancestry from the Mystical or Resourceful from the Temporal, because those are considered 'Special' characteristics from those suggested racial characteristics.
Feats and Ability Scores
This is probably the closest I come to 'gripe' in my criticisms of this UA. I strongly believe that Ability Score Improvements should be entirely reworked. This is a bit of a cheat because I'm somewhat incorporating what I've seen in the latest UA because I was really disappointed that they went with what I suspected they would after having seen the feats in this (Character Origins) one.
My reasons are many but can mostly be summed up in the notion that an Ability Score Improvement is almost always the best option, mechanically. I know and understand that not everyone operates based on making the most optimal mechanical choices but the option within the system to choose is, in and of itself, part of the problem, because it opens up a disparity between those who do and those who don't. It creates an entirely unnecessary source of conflict as well as a sense of elitism, on both sides of the debate. This just doesn't have to be the case. We can all have our cake and eat it too if we just make the system... differently.
My suggestion for doing this is threefold:
1) Limit starting ability scores, even after bonuses, to 15. This serves multiple purposes because it flattens and broadens ability scores chosen at 1st-level and limits min-maxing. Most players will do their damndest to have a 16 in their primary class ability and there is no fault in that, in fact, I think under the current system, it's a bit silly not to in most cases. But it also means sacrificing to get a 16 in a secondary ability, like say Constitution for a fighter. You start getting cookie-cutter characters, i.e. the low Charisma and/or Intelligence fighters. It's just... a bit dull, to be honest. Flattening/broadening not only opens up more interesting character possibilities and options further down the track, without systemic penality for doing so, and not only makes such choices easy and therefore limits 'expertise' in character creation, but it also means a character is less prone to having profound gaps in potential. A low Charisma character will almost always be a low Charisma character. Few players, even the ones geared more toward roleplaying, will ever bump that statistic beyond the 8 they started with, which will mean they'll always be prone to Charisma-based tests. And that's fine if it's what a player wants, but when it's built into the system as being the obviously 'best' choice at character creation due to the 'need' to have higher scores, like for a paladin who is already struggling to get Strength/Constitution/Charisma high, then it creates an unnecessary tension. Setting a maximum of 15 after bonuses at creation doesn't really penalise anyone but it does set a more even playing field which benefits everyone right at the start and throughout the entire character's existence and player's playing experience.
2) Incorporate +1 bonuses to Primary ability scores into classes. A rogue's primary ability score is Dexterity. So at 2nd level, the Rogue gets +1 to Dexterity. And then another at 5th, 10th, 15th and finally a fifth at 20th. The first comes at 2nd level for what should be obvious reasons after having read #1. Five total bonuses gets a character to 20 by 20th-level, regardless of all other considerations. So a 20th-level rogue will always be really good at their core abilities, irrespective of any other factor. There's no disparity created between min-maxers and roleplayers or 'elite' players and novices. The class prioritises this primary ability for a reason and so they logically improve in it as they level up.
3) ALL Feats are created with a +1 Ability Score Improvement built into it as part of its balance and is related to the feat itself. So Actor gives a +1 to Charisma and improves the character's ability to act. Alert gets a +1 to Wisdom and gets balanced so it's on par with other feats. Luck gets obliterated by being thrown into a Supermassive Black Hole, etc. Oh, and since I'm cheating by having seen the Ability Score Improvement feat, yeah, that can go jump off a skyscraper as well.
This is where character differentiation can shine. Since your class is improving your core abilities, you don't have to choose between an ASI and 'something neat'. It also allows for multi-classing where you're splitting ability score improvements and so will want to choose a Feat that improves one or the other Primary ability that you're going to, otherwise, miss out on as you rise to 20th-level. And it just opens up a lot more fun builds where you might want to showcase Gronk's growing love of Acting, having started with that 8 Charisma, which he isn't going to get bumped from his 20 Barbarian Rage-Monster class levels. And then maybe he takes the Fighting Style: Fancy Footwork (again, I know this isn't a thing, it's just a hypothetical to help explain something), which also gives him a +1 Charisma. He'll never be as good as Mr. Bard (20), but he could get some character acting gigs here and there, support roles, maybe even roll a natural 20 once in a while to win an award, which makes for a much more fun and interesting character than just, "Me Gronk, smash!"
The exception to 2 and 3 would be if you already have a 20 in an ability score and receive a bonus from a Feat or Class level. Then... stick it wherever you want as a general rules exception.
Anyway, those are the thoughts I forgot to express in any way to WotC. Do with them as you will. I have cathartised it out of my system.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.