Honestly it's not that substantial a change in any case, at least not thus far.
I guess I'm most disappointed with the new rules clarifications, because they seem to indicate that Jeremy Crawford is predictably taking the game in a very D&D3.5 direction where everything is precisely coded, when that was never its intent. Trying to build a more keyword-focused rules-forward update on a foundation that was always intended to be more interpretive and narrative could be an utter disaster. Better to build on the system's strengths than try to shore up its weaknesses.
Generally I have liked the feat descriptions so far. They seem to be more about increasing options than increasing power, which is as it should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
The power from the DM has never been stripped away so they could rule however on whatever they wanted.
What the play test is doing is giving concrete rulings on things that were extraordinarily ambiguous previously. If you don't like it, you can still do it however you want as the DM.
Good foundations are important, because it gives a good baseline on what the intent of a rule was supposed to be
I see some good flavor in the UA so far but do have some qualms with certain rules. I'll address the elephant in the room - only players can score critical hits. I don't think this serves the spirit of the game, regardless of whether or not a DM allows it, since it completely removes a long-standing caveat of danger and battle. To me, this seems to dilute the essence of adventuring and facing things that are terrible and ominous. What do you think?
Good foundations are important, because it gives a good baseline on what the intent of a rule was supposed to be
As I said, the foundations are not changing. Wizards appears to be building a rules-forward scaffold on select portions of an interpretive foundation that was not designed to support it. All this is going to do is create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice where this scaffold is not present (or badly constructed, which is also likely).
Rule Zero is not an excuse for crap game design, in either direction. Yes, a dungeon master can houserule whatever they want. But just as they should always be permitted to do so, they should never be forced to do so (or send a Tweet to Jeremy Crawford, if their imagination fails).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Was that in a previous packet? If it was, I totally missed it and I'm ashamed to say I don't remember them asking about it in the survey. It should have been a huge red flag; what an awful idea. I wouldn't mind considering a removal of critical hits entirely -- if the data was good -- but PCs definitely don't need more advantages or relative damage output in D&D5.
The latest packet says, "This Unearthed Arcana article uses the rules for attack rolls and critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook," so at the very least I'd say the change is under scrutiny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Good foundations are important, because it gives a good baseline on what the intent of a rule was supposed to be
As I said, the foundations are not changing. Wizards appears to be building a rules-forward scaffold on select portions of an interpretive foundation that was not designed to support it. All this is going to do is create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice where this scaffold is not present (or badly constructed, which is also likely). [...]
Can you give some examples in the 1DND playtest material where you felt that the new rules clarifications is going to create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice?
I see some good flavor in the UA so far but do have some qualms with certain rules. I'll address the elephant in the room - only players can score critical hits. I don't think this serves the spirit of the game, regardless of whether or not a DM allows it, since it completely removes a long-standing caveat of danger and battle. To me, this seems to dilute the essence of adventuring and facing things that are terrible and ominous. What do you think?
The rule that only player characters can score critical hits is only applicable to the first 1dnd playtest material (Character Origins). Since the most recent rules glossary supersedes the glossary in previous Unearthed Arcana articles, this is no longer the case.
Good foundations are important, because it gives a good baseline on what the intent of a rule was supposed to be
As I said, the foundations are not changing. Wizards appears to be building a rules-forward scaffold on select portions of an interpretive foundation that was not designed to support it. All this is going to do is create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice where this scaffold is not present (or badly constructed, which is also likely).
Rule Zero is not an excuse for crap game design, in either direction. Yes, a dungeon master can houserule whatever they want. But just as they should always be permitted to do so, they should never be forced to do so (or send a Tweet to Jeremy Crawford, if their imagination fails).
We're inherently disagreeing here.
When I say foundation, I mean "This is the ruling, this is what it means, this is what it does". That said the foundations ARE changing because a lot of the base rules, and by association what they do and how they work ARE being reworked.
What we're seeing with One D&D is a lot of trial and error for what the final product will be. Each playtest is fluid but they are making it a point to not have a lot of huge impactful things in each playtest so that each thing gets its own spotlight and scrutiny. I think a great example of a rule that NEEDS clarification is what Crawford said about the "Use an Object" action because he hit the nail on the head where its essentially a player asking the DM "Please master, may I do this?" where the reality is it could be really tightened up.
Was that in a previous packet? If it was, I totally missed it and I'm ashamed to say I don't remember them asking about it in the survey. It should have been a huge red flag; what an awful idea. I wouldn't mind considering a removal of critical hits entirely -- if the data was good -- but PCs definitely don't need more advantages or relative damage output in D&D5.
The latest packet says, "This Unearthed Arcana article uses the rules for attack rolls and critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook," so at the very least I'd say the change is under scrutiny.
It was in previous material, but it is only half of the story. Essentially monsters are getting buffed with recharge moves that simulate "critical hits" but are usable when the DM finds it narratively pleasing instead of random crits that can begin to domino a party unexpectedly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Quote from Zyrrel>> Essentially monsters are getting buffed with recharge moves that simulate "critical hits" but are usable when the DM finds it narratively pleasing instead of random crits that can begin to domino a party unexpectedly.
Where did you hear this? It sounds like a cool concept, but I don't see where it was presented.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write homebrew and don't publish it. (evil, I know)
Where did you hear this? It sounds like a cool concept, but I don't see where it was presented.
One of the explanation youtube videos WotC did talking about the philosophy behind the new rules ideas. It was one of the earlier ones. I'm looking forward to when we get to monster updates to see some of those ideas come to fruition. It sounds reminiscent of the recharge encounter powers that monsters had during the 4th Ed era, which I enjoyed.
To be honest, it just sounds like the "Recharge X-Y" mechanic we have now for some monsters. It should be noted that it's only for higher level monsters - Goblins will probably be getting a nerf, since they're no longer getting crits but won't be getting recharge abilities either.
The other effect is that it will likely buff the monsters that do get them. Currently, they get 1/20 chance of critting each attack, so on average, they probably won't crit in a given encounter and only double the damage dice value. With recharge abilities, they'll get one guaranteed use and then in a given round they'll probably have 1/3 chance (give or take, depending on the values used) of being able to use it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh certainly. They are mostly just taking the tech 5th Ed has and tweaking it a bit. And you are correct, I don't expect normal mob monsters to have extra powers to track, but any "leader" class of monster might pick up a new toy here or there.
Can you give some examples in the 1DND playtest material where you felt that the new rules clarifications is going to create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice?
I appreciate you asking, but I'm going to decline simply because of the amount of time it would take. If I think of it, when I'm going through the packet to respond to the survey next month, I'll take notes and come back to you.
Seriously, thanks for your interest, I just really need to be spending less time on this forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
What we're seeing with One D&D is a lot of trial and error for what the final product will be. Each playtest is fluid but they are making it a point to not have a lot of huge impactful things in each playtest so that each thing gets its own spotlight and scrutiny. I think a great example of a rule that NEEDS clarification is what Crawford said about the "Use an Object" action because he hit the nail on the head where its essentially a player asking the DM "Please master, may I do this?" where the reality is it could be really tightened up.
when did it become a bad thing for a player to ask "Hey can i do this?" I got through BECMI, 1st and 2nd edition D&D asking and being asked by players that very question. It is a question i never get tired of hearing.
What we're seeing with One D&D is a lot of trial and error for what the final product will be. Each playtest is fluid but they are making it a point to not have a lot of huge impactful things in each playtest so that each thing gets its own spotlight and scrutiny. I think a great example of a rule that NEEDS clarification is what Crawford said about the "Use an Object" action because he hit the nail on the head where its essentially a player asking the DM "Please master, may I do this?" where the reality is it could be really tightened up.
when did it become a bad thing for a player to ask "Hey can i do this?" I got through BECMI, 1st and 2nd edition D&D asking and being asked by players that very question. It is a question i never get tired of hearing.
That, in of itself, isn't a bad thing. Crawford was specifically pointing to, "Mother, may I?" types of features that led to inconsistent play. For example, The rogue's Thief Archetype had an enhancement to Cunning Action which let it take the [Tooltip Not Found] as part of that Bonus Action. The ambiguity arose because the rules never explicitly stated what that action was or would look like. Just take a look at acid (vial).
As an action, you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the acid as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 acid damage.
Is that the [Tooltip Not Found] action, the Attack action (since an attack is being made), or is it it's own action? Do you still add Dexterity to the attack and damage roll? (As it turns out, yes.) As wonderful as Sage Advice is, we shouldn't need that to clarify things for us. For crying out loud, there hasn't been an update since before Tasha's was printed. There shouldn't be confusion over essential features.
As wonderful as Sage Advice is, we shouldn't need that to clarify things for us. For crying out loud, there hasn't been an update since before Tasha's was printed. There shouldn't be confusion over essential features.
Some of us are not and have never been confused by common sense tableside decison making, and are rightly concerned about Crawford's abandonment of the design principles of D&D5. Room for interpretation is an important part of a game that is adjudicated by agreement between living, thinking players and not by a CPU runtime.
Every prior edition of D&D focused more on explicit explanations of rules. We still argued about rules constantly. It's not a solution to the problem. The solution is flexibility and creativity, and encouraging both.
Sage Advice has always been wrong at least as often as it is right, and even when it is right, if it is wrong for your table, it is still wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Sage Advice is just that: advice. It's not the Word of God being handed down from on high. Take it with a grain of salt or not.
If WotC is serious about a VTT, like they initially wanted back during 4E, then they need consistency. Especially with organized play, which is something they have to care about beyond your table. This doesn't do away with the rule of cool─far from it. The words on the page should say what they mean. I shouldn't be guessing as to the intent of the PH ranger's Beast Companion because I think an Oxford Comma is missing when it's just fallen out of vogue. And that's an ambiguity which should not be there.
when did it become a bad thing for a player to ask "Hey can i do this?" I got through BECMI, 1st and 2nd edition D&D asking and being asked by players that very question. It is a question i never get tired of hearing.
There's a difference between "the rules don't cover this" and "there are rules for this but it's not clear what they mean".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With Character Origins, Expert Classes, and Cleric UA now released, I am curious to know what others feel so far about the proposed changes.
What is the best thing you've seen?
What is the worst?
Honestly it's not that substantial a change in any case, at least not thus far.
I guess I'm most disappointed with the new rules clarifications, because they seem to indicate that Jeremy Crawford is predictably taking the game in a very D&D3.5 direction where everything is precisely coded, when that was never its intent. Trying to build a more keyword-focused rules-forward update on a foundation that was always intended to be more interpretive and narrative could be an utter disaster. Better to build on the system's strengths than try to shore up its weaknesses.
Generally I have liked the feat descriptions so far. They seem to be more about increasing options than increasing power, which is as it should be.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
The power from the DM has never been stripped away so they could rule however on whatever they wanted.
What the play test is doing is giving concrete rulings on things that were extraordinarily ambiguous previously. If you don't like it, you can still do it however you want as the DM.
Good foundations are important, because it gives a good baseline on what the intent of a rule was supposed to be
I see some good flavor in the UA so far but do have some qualms with certain rules. I'll address the elephant in the room - only players can score critical hits. I don't think this serves the spirit of the game, regardless of whether or not a DM allows it, since it completely removes a long-standing caveat of danger and battle. To me, this seems to dilute the essence of adventuring and facing things that are terrible and ominous. What do you think?
As I said, the foundations are not changing. Wizards appears to be building a rules-forward scaffold on select portions of an interpretive foundation that was not designed to support it. All this is going to do is create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice where this scaffold is not present (or badly constructed, which is also likely).
Rule Zero is not an excuse for crap game design, in either direction. Yes, a dungeon master can houserule whatever they want. But just as they should always be permitted to do so, they should never be forced to do so (or send a Tweet to Jeremy Crawford, if their imagination fails).
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Was that in a previous packet? If it was, I totally missed it and I'm ashamed to say I don't remember them asking about it in the survey. It should have been a huge red flag; what an awful idea. I wouldn't mind considering a removal of critical hits entirely -- if the data was good -- but PCs definitely don't need more advantages or relative damage output in D&D5.
The latest packet says, "This Unearthed Arcana article uses the rules for attack rolls and critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook," so at the very least I'd say the change is under scrutiny.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Can you give some examples in the 1DND playtest material where you felt that the new rules clarifications is going to create more confusion, more questions, and more dependence on Sage Advice?
The rule that only player characters can score critical hits is only applicable to the first 1dnd playtest material (Character Origins). Since the most recent rules glossary supersedes the glossary in previous Unearthed Arcana articles, this is no longer the case.
We're inherently disagreeing here.
When I say foundation, I mean "This is the ruling, this is what it means, this is what it does". That said the foundations ARE changing because a lot of the base rules, and by association what they do and how they work ARE being reworked.
What we're seeing with One D&D is a lot of trial and error for what the final product will be. Each playtest is fluid but they are making it a point to not have a lot of huge impactful things in each playtest so that each thing gets its own spotlight and scrutiny. I think a great example of a rule that NEEDS clarification is what Crawford said about the "Use an Object" action because he hit the nail on the head where its essentially a player asking the DM "Please master, may I do this?" where the reality is it could be really tightened up.
It was in previous material, but it is only half of the story. Essentially monsters are getting buffed with recharge moves that simulate "critical hits" but are usable when the DM finds it narratively pleasing instead of random crits that can begin to domino a party unexpectedly.
Where did you hear this? It sounds like a cool concept, but I don't see where it was presented.
I write homebrew and don't publish it. (evil, I know)
One of the explanation youtube videos WotC did talking about the philosophy behind the new rules ideas. It was one of the earlier ones. I'm looking forward to when we get to monster updates to see some of those ideas come to fruition. It sounds reminiscent of the recharge encounter powers that monsters had during the 4th Ed era, which I enjoyed.
To be honest, it just sounds like the "Recharge X-Y" mechanic we have now for some monsters. It should be noted that it's only for higher level monsters - Goblins will probably be getting a nerf, since they're no longer getting crits but won't be getting recharge abilities either.
The other effect is that it will likely buff the monsters that do get them. Currently, they get 1/20 chance of critting each attack, so on average, they probably won't crit in a given encounter and only double the damage dice value. With recharge abilities, they'll get one guaranteed use and then in a given round they'll probably have 1/3 chance (give or take, depending on the values used) of being able to use it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh certainly. They are mostly just taking the tech 5th Ed has and tweaking it a bit. And you are correct, I don't expect normal mob monsters to have extra powers to track, but any "leader" class of monster might pick up a new toy here or there.
I appreciate you asking, but I'm going to decline simply because of the amount of time it would take. If I think of it, when I'm going through the packet to respond to the survey next month, I'll take notes and come back to you.
Seriously, thanks for your interest, I just really need to be spending less time on this forum.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
when did it become a bad thing for a player to ask "Hey can i do this?" I got through BECMI, 1st and 2nd edition D&D asking and being asked by players that very question. It is a question i never get tired of hearing.
That, in of itself, isn't a bad thing. Crawford was specifically pointing to, "Mother, may I?" types of features that led to inconsistent play. For example, The rogue's Thief Archetype had an enhancement to Cunning Action which let it take the [Tooltip Not Found] as part of that Bonus Action. The ambiguity arose because the rules never explicitly stated what that action was or would look like. Just take a look at acid (vial).
Is that the [Tooltip Not Found] action, the Attack action (since an attack is being made), or is it it's own action? Do you still add Dexterity to the attack and damage roll? (As it turns out, yes.) As wonderful as Sage Advice is, we shouldn't need that to clarify things for us. For crying out loud, there hasn't been an update since before Tasha's was printed. There shouldn't be confusion over essential features.
Some of us are not and have never been confused by common sense tableside decison making, and are rightly concerned about Crawford's abandonment of the design principles of D&D5. Room for interpretation is an important part of a game that is adjudicated by agreement between living, thinking players and not by a CPU runtime.
Every prior edition of D&D focused more on explicit explanations of rules. We still argued about rules constantly. It's not a solution to the problem. The solution is flexibility and creativity, and encouraging both.
Sage Advice has always been wrong at least as often as it is right, and even when it is right, if it is wrong for your table, it is still wrong.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Sage Advice is just that: advice. It's not the Word of God being handed down from on high. Take it with a grain of salt or not.
If WotC is serious about a VTT, like they initially wanted back during 4E, then they need consistency. Especially with organized play, which is something they have to care about beyond your table. This doesn't do away with the rule of cool─far from it. The words on the page should say what they mean. I shouldn't be guessing as to the intent of the PH ranger's Beast Companion because I think an Oxford Comma is missing when it's just fallen out of vogue. And that's an ambiguity which should not be there.
There's a difference between "the rules don't cover this" and "there are rules for this but it's not clear what they mean".