Wonder if that has anything to do with the entire goddamn userbase for R5e rising up in a tsunami of grognardism and demanding that Wizards not actually fix or change anything while they're fixing/changing 5e.
Doubtful. Even if there is a "flood," that shouldn't have any impact on a completely new UA that, by all rights, should be covering completely new material independant of what came before. There shouldn't be enough overlap so that the responces from this survey will have an impact on the next UA.
"Crap! Deadline's here and we're not ready! May as well leave the survey drop open til we are" or "So many people still responding! Keep it open for longer!" or just as likely, some combination thereof are the most likely culprits. Along with responces that amount to "WTF! How do you expect us to playtest this crap in just two weeks?!?! Share whatever you are smoking, because clearly you all are high as @#$."
They don't like the way things are, but they don't want 'em to change, either.
I don't think it is that they don't want things to change, it is just that no one can agree as to what should be changed and how. Every table has it's own rules so it is only reasonable to expect that everyone wants something different when it comes to changes.
Nah. There's a ton of people from all walks of life, and all ages, that just ... hate change. And we're not just talking about games. Everything from technology, to politics, to food and fashion. So there's definitely a part of dnd fandom that will resist change just because its a change.
Wonder if that has anything to do with the entire goddamn userbase for R5e rising up in a tsunami of grognardism and demanding that Wizards not actually fix or change anything while they're fixing/changing 5e.
Doubtful. Even if there is a "flood," that shouldn't have any impact on a completely new UA that, by all rights, should be covering completely new material independant of what came before. There shouldn't be enough overlap so that the responces from this survey will have an impact on the next UA.
"Crap! Deadline's here and we're not ready! May as well leave the survey drop open til we are" or "So many people still responding! Keep it open for longer!" or just as likely, some combination thereof are the most likely culprits. Along with responces that amount to "WTF! How do you expect us to playtest this crap in just two weeks?!?! Share whatever you are smoking, because clearly you all are high as @#$."
They don't like the way things are, but they don't want 'em to change, either.
I don't think it is that they don't want things to change, it is just that no one can agree as to what should be changed and how. Every table has it's own rules so it is only reasonable to expect that everyone wants something different when it comes to changes.
Nah. There's a ton of people from all walks of life, and all ages, that just ... hate change. And we're not just talking about games. Everything from technology, to politics, to food and fashion. So there's definitely a part of dnd fandom that will resist change just because its a change.
Some, but those people are rare. Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits, and I'm not that fond of the inspiration, but I do mostly like some of the you can't add extra damage to your crits via divine smite new rules. I don't know about the monsters can't crit thing, I get that they can be really swingy, but I think if Wizards looks into it enough, they could find ways for monsters do have a half-crit or something, and have it not unbalance combat.
Anyways, I mostly like the way things are with crits. But there are many different perspectives on the changes and what they think about them, and I think that each of these perspectives should have their opinion at least be respected, if not liked, and have it be listened to.
I don't think many people resist change because its change, if they do, then that is a problem. However, in a game with 50 million or so people, you will always have some anomalies who disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But again, those people are rare.
That's...odd to hear. Reception among the wider community (YouTube, Reddit, Discord, etc) has been overwhelmingly positive. There's two or three controversial elements, but the overall consensus I've seen is that it's mostly a step in the right direction.
That said, I've paid no attention whatsoever to how the Beyond forums specifically reacted to it.
The DDB forum userbase reaction has been nigh universally negative, and not "ambivalent-trending-negative" either. It was a giant nonstop screaming forum fire in here for three weeks, and only in recent days have people stopped trying to scream the entire document into oblivion. There's maybe three people on the entire forum who haven't decided the whole document is basically an Insult To All D&D. It's been awful. If the wider community is more welcoming, that's news to me. Welcome news, but still news.
I don't think that's quite true. Again, people like me may not like some things about 1DD, but that doesn't mean that they hate it all and deem it an insult to the game. It just means that they don't like some/that specific part/s of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That's...odd to hear. Reception among the wider community (YouTube, Reddit, Discord, etc) has been overwhelmingly positive. There's two or three controversial elements, but the overall consensus I've seen is that it's mostly a step in the right direction.
That said, I've paid no attention whatsoever to how the Beyond forums specifically reacted to it.
The DDB forum userbase reaction has been nigh universally negative, and not "ambivalent-trending-negative" either. It was a giant nonstop screaming forum fire in here for three weeks, and only in recent days have people stopped trying to scream the entire document into oblivion. There's maybe three people on the entire forum who haven't decided the whole document is basically an Insult To All D&D. It's been awful. If the wider community is more welcoming, that's news to me. Welcome news, but still news.
I don't think that's quite true. Again, people like me may not like some things about 1DD, but that doesn't mean that they hate it all and deem it an insult to the game. It just means that they don't like some/that specific part/s of it.
That's...odd to hear. Reception among the wider community (YouTube, Reddit, Discord, etc) has been overwhelmingly positive. There's two or three controversial elements, but the overall consensus I've seen is that it's mostly a step in the right direction.
That said, I've paid no attention whatsoever to how the Beyond forums specifically reacted to it.
The DDB forum userbase reaction has been nigh universally negative, and not "ambivalent-trending-negative" either. It was a giant nonstop screaming forum fire in here for three weeks, and only in recent days have people stopped trying to scream the entire document into oblivion. There's maybe three people on the entire forum who haven't decided the whole document is basically an Insult To All D&D. It's been awful. If the wider community is more welcoming, that's news to me. Welcome news, but still news.
I don't think that's quite true. Again, people like me may not like some things about 1DD, but that doesn't mean that they hate it all and deem it an insult to the game. It just means that they don't like some/that specific part/s of it.
Well you, me, and Yurei. That's 3.
I make 4. I only dislike some parts of it, and I actually like other parts.
That's...odd to hear. Reception among the wider community (YouTube, Reddit, Discord, etc) has been overwhelmingly positive. There's two or three controversial elements, but the overall consensus I've seen is that it's mostly a step in the right direction.
That said, I've paid no attention whatsoever to how the Beyond forums specifically reacted to it.
The DDB forum userbase reaction has been nigh universally negative, and not "ambivalent-trending-negative" either. It was a giant nonstop screaming forum fire in here for three weeks, and only in recent days have people stopped trying to scream the entire document into oblivion. There's maybe three people on the entire forum who haven't decided the whole document is basically an Insult To All D&D. It's been awful. If the wider community is more welcoming, that's news to me. Welcome news, but still news.
I don't think that's quite true. Again, people like me may not like some things about 1DD, but that doesn't mean that they hate it all and deem it an insult to the game. It just means that they don't like some/that specific part/s of it.
Well you, me, and Yurei. That's 3.
I make 4. I only dislike some parts of it, and I actually like other parts.
I like basically everything about it, and my only problems with it are fairly minor (I think Ardlings and Aasimar should be combined, Dwarves shouldn't get "a wizard did it" tool proficiencies, some minor rule fixes like rewriting the Lucky feat, and so on).
So, make that 5, I guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I've plainly stated on here that I like much of what's in it. And given that I've just upped the count to 6, I think it's reasonable to assume it's much more than 3.
Along with responces that amount to "WTF! How do you expect us to playtest this crap in just two weeks?!?! Share whatever you are smoking, because clearly you all are high as @#$."
Um, excuse me, you can still playtest while the survey is open. That's four weeks. Nearly six now that it's extended.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits,
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
and I'm not that fond of the inspiration,
I love the new inspiration, I just wish you got it on a Nat1 instead of a Nat20. Fail forward instead of rewarding those who are already doing great and having fun feeling powerful. Plus it gives you that fun "grit your teeth through failure and regroup" thing, like that moment in Endgame where Cap tightens the straps on his shattered shield to stand up and walk towards Thanos alone.
I don't know about the monsters can't crit thing, I get that they can be really swingy, but I think if Wizards looks into it enough, they could find ways for monsters do have a half-crit or something, and have it not unbalance combat.
I did a whole post about it on Reddit after doing a buncha math, but my simple solution was just to allow monsters to max damage dice on a crit instead of doubling them. Higher floor, but lower average and much lower ceiling. I don't so much care about the damage/power/balance side of things so much as just...the DM is a player, too. They deserve to get a little extra fun on a crit. It sucks seeing the 20 on the die and remembering "oh yeah, it's just a number, doesn't mean anything."
Anyways, I mostly like the way things are with crits. But there are many different perspectives on the changes and what they think about them, and I think that each of these perspectives should have their opinion at least be respected, if not liked, and have it be listened to.
Personally, I have maybe three or four things I don't love about the doc:
1. I'm fine with auto-success/failure on nat20/1 for attacks (it's already RAW) and even saves, but hate it on ability checks. They work very differently both mechanically and in the narrative, and there's also so many more ways to bolster them mechanically that allowing auto win/lose states on die rolls invalidates some of the very few customization choices that players get to make over a character's career. I think it's unhealthy for the game, and will lead to a lot more problems than solutions.
2. Dragonborn suck ass. Give us Fizban's dragonborn back.
3. I actually really like Ardlings, and vastly prefer their fluff to Aasimar, but their mechanics lag behind Elves and Tieflings (their closest cousins in the UA, mechanically) in both power and utility, and the three lineages/ancestries within the base race don't have enough of a unique identity to feel separate.
4...there was something else but I've forgotten it. Maybe I'll come back.
I don't think many people resist change because its change, if they do, then that is a problem.
Again, I don't think you live in the same 21st century that I do. And definitely not the same America.
However, in a game with 50 million or so people, you will always have some anomalies who disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But again, those people are rare.
I don't really agree with the details, but I think your greater point here is very valid. With as wide a player base as this game has, there's literally no way everyone will agree on everything. Especially with this specific example, given 5e's general state and status. It's too big to please everyone, and 5e specifically has a lot of other stuff getting in its way beyond just the law of averages.
I've plainly stated on here that I like much of what's in it. And given that I've just upped the count to 6, I think it's reasonable to assume it's much more than 3.
And I make 6. I'm pretty high on it overall, and though there are things I dislike, a few strongly (listed in an earlier post), I think the majority of it is very good and I'm excited about where else it could go. Particularly the actual focus of the document, i.e. races and backgrounds (with the attendant leveled feats) are just aces. Dwarf, Elf, Human, and Tiefling, particularly are better than they've ever been, and the focus on custom backgrounds (with ASI being moved as well) is fantastic.
I really like most of the UA as well, it just needs a little work which is the whole point of playtesting. I think the Grappling rules need a bit more work and better language, but I think it is a good start. And, other than needing a few very minor tweaks (Dragonborn mostly), the Race/Background/Feats look really good. I actually like the Spell Lists.
The only things I don't like are the auto success/failure for Ability Checks and Inspiration. I am most indifferent about Crit Damage though the people I play with really hate it so if my players don't like it, I will have to side with them I guess.
My speculation is that spell selection for the spellcasting classes will change a fair bit. So instead of wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, artificers, and bards having their own spell lists, they can just choose from the arcane spell list at the appropriate levels. Same with clerics and paladins regarding the divine spell list, and druids and rangers regarding the primal spell list.
That in turn helps to close the gap between the power levels of the spell lists for sorcerers and wizards.
I'm pretty fine with the grappling rules as-is, it's a huge boost to Monks, which is nice. That said, I've not actually played with them any.
I have zero opinion on the spell lists. Apart from Magic Initiate drawing from them, we have no idea what they actually mean.
I like that having these lists adds some spells to classes, helps makes Magic Initiate an over all better Feat(that can now be taken 3 times), and makes adding spells to the game easier since they just get added to the appropriate core list(s) instead of having to rework multiple class lists. It isn't a lot, but it is a good change overall in my opinion.
In our playtesting, the main issue we have run into is the "forever stuck". Also, just over all clearer rules language would be nice, but that is all for the Grappling thread.
My speculation is that spell selection for the spellcasting classes will change a fair bit. So instead of wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, artificers, and bards having their own spell lists, they can just choose from the arcane spell list at the appropriate levels. Same with clerics and paladins regarding the divine spell list, and druids and rangers regarding the primal spell list.
That in turn helps to close the gap between the power levels of the spell lists for sorcerers and wizards.
I'm pretty fine with the grappling rules as-is, it's a huge boost to Monks, which is nice. That said, I've not actually played with them any.
I have zero opinion on the spell lists. Apart from Magic Initiate drawing from them, we have no idea what they actually mean.
I like that having these lists adds some spells to classes, helps makes Magic Initiate an over all better Feat(that can now be taken 3 times), and makes adding spells to the game easier since they just get added to the appropriate core list(s) instead of having to rework multiple class lists. It isn't a lot, but it is a good change overall in my opinion.
Y'all are both inferring a lot that isn't in the document at all. We have zero information on how the classes interact with these lists, except that Crawford said in the video that classes would still have their own, and would each interact with these three "universal" lists in different ways. Paladins don't just suddenly get all spells from the Divine list, and Bards don't spontaneously have all Arcane spells. And I don't think it should work that way. That suddenly makes every spellcasting class much stronger than they already are, and it would take giving martials a lot in order for them to keep up.
My speculation is that spell selection for the spellcasting classes will change a fair bit. So instead of wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, artificers, and bards having their own spell lists, they can just choose from the arcane spell list at the appropriate levels. Same with clerics and paladins regarding the divine spell list, and druids and rangers regarding the primal spell list.
That in turn helps to close the gap between the power levels of the spell lists for sorcerers and wizards.
I doubt it. I’m pretty sure each class will still have its own list, but all Arcane casters will also have access to the Arcane spell list, all Divine casters will have access to the Divine spell list and all Primal casters will have access to the Primal spell list, but that each spellcasting class will also have its own supplemental spell list as well.
I also expect subclasses like EK & AT will have access to the Arcane spell list and a few select Wiz spells from their restricted schools. And I expect that other subclasses (like the Divine Soul Sorcerer) will loose access to additional class related spell lists and just get access to the more limited selections, for example that aforementioned Divine Soul will loose access to the Cleric spell list and instead get access to the Divine spell list.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits,
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
Feel free to like this change, but I think you''l find that a lot of people like me will disagree. If you don't understand why people don't like this change, then this thread has 8 pages of explaining.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits,
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
and I'm not that fond of the inspiration,
I love the new inspiration, I just wish you got it on a Nat1 instead of a Nat20. Fail forward instead of rewarding those who are already doing great and having fun feeling powerful. Plus it gives you that fun "grit your teeth through failure and regroup" thing, like that moment in Endgame where Cap tightens the straps on his shattered shield to stand up and walk towards Thanos alone.
I don't know about the monsters can't crit thing, I get that they can be really swingy, but I think if Wizards looks into it enough, they could find ways for monsters do have a half-crit or something, and have it not unbalance combat.
I did a whole post about it on Reddit after doing a buncha math, but my simple solution was just to allow monsters to max damage dice on a crit instead of doubling them. Higher floor, but lower average and much lower ceiling. I don't so much care about the damage/power/balance side of things so much as just...the DM is a player, too. They deserve to get a little extra fun on a crit. It sucks seeing the 20 on the die and remembering "oh yeah, it's just a number, doesn't mean anything."
Hmmm... then I hope Wizards explores that option for monster crits. And I would love to see the Reddit post & math too if you could provide a link for it.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits,
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
and I'm not that fond of the inspiration,
I love the new inspiration, I just wish you got it on a Nat1 instead of a Nat20. Fail forward instead of rewarding those who are already doing great and having fun feeling powerful. Plus it gives you that fun "grit your teeth through failure and regroup" thing, like that moment in Endgame where Cap tightens the straps on his shattered shield to stand up and walk towards Thanos alone.
I've seen that idea, and I think it probably works better. Anyways, I do want people to get something on crits though, especially spellcasters. I just feel like inspiration is a weak, confusing, and not very helpful mechanic & reward, the former specifically for newer players.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits,
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
and I'm not that fond of the inspiration,
I love the new inspiration, I just wish you got it on a Nat1 instead of a Nat20. Fail forward instead of rewarding those who are already doing great and having fun feeling powerful. Plus it gives you that fun "grit your teeth through failure and regroup" thing, like that moment in Endgame where Cap tightens the straps on his shattered shield to stand up and walk towards Thanos alone.
I don't know about the monsters can't crit thing, I get that they can be really swingy, but I think if Wizards looks into it enough, they could find ways for monsters do have a half-crit or something, and have it not unbalance combat.
I did a whole post about it on Reddit after doing a buncha math, but my simple solution was just to allow monsters to max damage dice on a crit instead of doubling them. Higher floor, but lower average and much lower ceiling. I don't so much care about the damage/power/balance side of things so much as just...the DM is a player, too. They deserve to get a little extra fun on a crit. It sucks seeing the 20 on the die and remembering "oh yeah, it's just a number, doesn't mean anything."
Anyways, I mostly like the way things are with crits. But there are many different perspectives on the changes and what they think about them, and I think that each of these perspectives should have their opinion at least be respected, if not liked, and have it be listened to.
Personally, I have maybe three or four things I don't love about the doc:
1. I'm fine with auto-success/failure on nat20/1 for attacks (it's already RAW) and even saves, but hate it on ability checks. They work very differently both mechanically and in the narrative, and there's also so many more ways to bolster them mechanically that allowing auto win/lose states on die rolls invalidates some of the very few customization choices that players get to make over a character's career. I think it's unhealthy for the game, and will lead to a lot more problems than solutions.
2. Dragonborn suck ass. Give us Fizban's dragonborn back.
3. I actually really like Ardlings, and vastly prefer their fluff to Aasimar, but their mechanics lag behind Elves and Tieflings (their closest cousins in the UA, mechanically) in both power and utility, and the three lineages/ancestries within the base race don't have enough of a unique identity to feel separate.
4...there was something else but I've forgotten it. Maybe I'll come back.
I don't have time to comment on it now, but I find these points interesting. I'd love to here your fourth thing if you remember it.
My speculation is that spell selection for the spellcasting classes will change a fair bit. So instead of wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, artificers, and bards having their own spell lists, they can just choose from the arcane spell list at the appropriate levels. Same with clerics and paladins regarding the divine spell list, and druids and rangers regarding the primal spell list.
That in turn helps to close the gap between the power levels of the spell lists for sorcerers and wizards.
I'm pretty fine with the grappling rules as-is, it's a huge boost to Monks, which is nice. That said, I've not actually played with them any.
I have zero opinion on the spell lists. Apart from Magic Initiate drawing from them, we have no idea what they actually mean.
I like that having these lists adds some spells to classes, helps makes Magic Initiate an over all better Feat(that can now be taken 3 times), and makes adding spells to the game easier since they just get added to the appropriate core list(s) instead of having to rework multiple class lists. It isn't a lot, but it is a good change overall in my opinion.
Y'all are both inferring a lot that isn't in the document at all. We have zero information on how the classes interact with these lists, except that Crawford said in the video that classes would still have their own, and would each interact with these three "universal" lists in different ways. Paladins don't just suddenly get all spells from the Divine list, and Bards don't spontaneously have all Arcane spells. And I don't think it should work that way. That suddenly makes every spellcasting class much stronger than they already are, and it would take giving martials a lot in order for them to keep up.
ARCANE SPELLS An Arcane Spell draws on the ambient magic of the multiverse. Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards harness this magic, as do Artificers. For a partial list of Arcane Spells, see the “Spell Lists” section later in this document
DIVINE SPELLS A Divine Spell draws on the power of gods and the Outer Planes. Clerics and Paladins harness this magic. For a partial list of Divine Spells, see the “Spell Lists” section later in this document.
PRIMAL SPELLS A Primal Spell draws on the forces of nature and the Inner Planes. Druids and Rangers harness this magic. For a partial list of Primal Spells, see the “Spell Lists” section later in this document.
SPELL LISTS There are now three main Spell lists in the game: Arcane, Divine, and Primal. In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list.
Seems pretty clear to me, but I could be wrong. We will have to wait and see.
My only issue with the playtest material is the increased emphasis on inspiration, a mechanic I don't particularly care for (at least in its current state).
Hmmm... then I hope Wizards explores that option for monster crits. And I would love to see the Reddit post & math too if you could provide a link for it.
Post is here. Still haven't remembered my fourth point, either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Doubtful. Even if there is a "flood," that shouldn't have any impact on a completely new UA that, by all rights, should be covering completely new material independant of what came before. There shouldn't be enough overlap so that the responces from this survey will have an impact on the next UA.
"Crap! Deadline's here and we're not ready! May as well leave the survey drop open til we are" or "So many people still responding! Keep it open for longer!" or just as likely, some combination thereof are the most likely culprits. Along with responces that amount to "WTF! How do you expect us to playtest this crap in just two weeks?!?! Share whatever you are smoking, because clearly you all are high as @#$."
Nah. There's a ton of people from all walks of life, and all ages, that just ... hate change. And we're not just talking about games. Everything from technology, to politics, to food and fashion. So there's definitely a part of dnd fandom that will resist change just because its a change.
Some, but those people are rare. Personally, Golaryn said it all for me: I hate the changes to spells crits, and I'm not that fond of the inspiration, but I do mostly like some of the you can't add extra damage to your crits via divine smite new rules. I don't know about the monsters can't crit thing, I get that they can be really swingy, but I think if Wizards looks into it enough, they could find ways for monsters do have a half-crit or something, and have it not unbalance combat.
Anyways, I mostly like the way things are with crits. But there are many different perspectives on the changes and what they think about them, and I think that each of these perspectives should have their opinion at least be respected, if not liked, and have it be listened to.
I don't think many people resist change because its change, if they do, then that is a problem. However, in a game with 50 million or so people, you will always have some anomalies who disagree for the sake of disagreeing. But again, those people are rare.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I don't think that's quite true. Again, people like me may not like some things about 1DD, but that doesn't mean that they hate it all and deem it an insult to the game. It just means that they don't like some/that specific part/s of it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Well you, me, and Yurei. That's 3.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I make 4. I only dislike some parts of it, and I actually like other parts.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I like basically everything about it, and my only problems with it are fairly minor (I think Ardlings and Aasimar should be combined, Dwarves shouldn't get "a wizard did it" tool proficiencies, some minor rule fixes like rewriting the Lucky feat, and so on).
So, make that 5, I guess.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've plainly stated on here that I like much of what's in it. And given that I've just upped the count to 6, I think it's reasonable to assume it's much more than 3.
Um, excuse me, you can still playtest while the survey is open. That's four weeks. Nearly six now that it's extended.
You clearly don't live in the same 21st century that I do.
See...I don't understand this one. At all. There are only 29 spells that use attack rolls and a total of 536 in the game. That's 5.41% of spells. It's negligible at best. Granted, a decent proportion of those are cantrips, but cantrips are supposed to be the "I'm out of juice and desperate" option. Removing spell crits is absolutely fine, and indirectly bolsters martials by giving them something (non-melee/gish) spellcasters don't have. I am utterly in favor of this change. The only spell/class combo it really hurts is EB/Warlock, but Eldritch Blast not appearing on the spell lists in the document implies that it'll likely be a class feature, possibly with specific wording that allows it to crit. For that we'll have to wait and see, though.
But overall, I think this is a solid change.
I love the new inspiration, I just wish you got it on a Nat1 instead of a Nat20. Fail forward instead of rewarding those who are already doing great and having fun feeling powerful. Plus it gives you that fun "grit your teeth through failure and regroup" thing, like that moment in Endgame where Cap tightens the straps on his shattered shield to stand up and walk towards Thanos alone.
I did a whole post about it on Reddit after doing a buncha math, but my simple solution was just to allow monsters to max damage dice on a crit instead of doubling them. Higher floor, but lower average and much lower ceiling. I don't so much care about the damage/power/balance side of things so much as just...the DM is a player, too. They deserve to get a little extra fun on a crit. It sucks seeing the 20 on the die and remembering "oh yeah, it's just a number, doesn't mean anything."
Personally, I have maybe three or four things I don't love about the doc:
1. I'm fine with auto-success/failure on nat20/1 for attacks (it's already RAW) and even saves, but hate it on ability checks. They work very differently both mechanically and in the narrative, and there's also so many more ways to bolster them mechanically that allowing auto win/lose states on die rolls invalidates some of the very few customization choices that players get to make over a character's career. I think it's unhealthy for the game, and will lead to a lot more problems than solutions.
2. Dragonborn suck ass. Give us Fizban's dragonborn back.
3. I actually really like Ardlings, and vastly prefer their fluff to Aasimar, but their mechanics lag behind Elves and Tieflings (their closest cousins in the UA, mechanically) in both power and utility, and the three lineages/ancestries within the base race don't have enough of a unique identity to feel separate.
4...there was something else but I've forgotten it. Maybe I'll come back.
Again, I don't think you live in the same 21st century that I do. And definitely not the same America.
I don't really agree with the details, but I think your greater point here is very valid. With as wide a player base as this game has, there's literally no way everyone will agree on everything. Especially with this specific example, given 5e's general state and status. It's too big to please everyone, and 5e specifically has a lot of other stuff getting in its way beyond just the law of averages.
And I make 6. I'm pretty high on it overall, and though there are things I dislike, a few strongly (listed in an earlier post), I think the majority of it is very good and I'm excited about where else it could go. Particularly the actual focus of the document, i.e. races and backgrounds (with the attendant leveled feats) are just aces. Dwarf, Elf, Human, and Tiefling, particularly are better than they've ever been, and the focus on custom backgrounds (with ASI being moved as well) is fantastic.
I really like most of the UA as well, it just needs a little work which is the whole point of playtesting. I think the Grappling rules need a bit more work and better language, but I think it is a good start. And, other than needing a few very minor tweaks (Dragonborn mostly), the Race/Background/Feats look really good. I actually like the Spell Lists.
The only things I don't like are the auto success/failure for Ability Checks and Inspiration. I am most indifferent about Crit Damage though the people I play with really hate it so if my players don't like it, I will have to side with them I guess.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm pretty fine with the grappling rules as-is, it's a huge boost to Monks, which is nice. That said, I've not actually played with them any.
I have zero opinion on the spell lists. Apart from Magic Initiate drawing from them, we have no idea what they actually mean.
My speculation is that spell selection for the spellcasting classes will change a fair bit. So instead of wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, artificers, and bards having their own spell lists, they can just choose from the arcane spell list at the appropriate levels. Same with clerics and paladins regarding the divine spell list, and druids and rangers regarding the primal spell list.
That in turn helps to close the gap between the power levels of the spell lists for sorcerers and wizards.
I like that having these lists adds some spells to classes, helps makes Magic Initiate an over all better Feat(that can now be taken 3 times), and makes adding spells to the game easier since they just get added to the appropriate core list(s) instead of having to rework multiple class lists. It isn't a lot, but it is a good change overall in my opinion.
In our playtesting, the main issue we have run into is the "forever stuck". Also, just over all clearer rules language would be nice, but that is all for the Grappling thread.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Y'all are both inferring a lot that isn't in the document at all. We have zero information on how the classes interact with these lists, except that Crawford said in the video that classes would still have their own, and would each interact with these three "universal" lists in different ways. Paladins don't just suddenly get all spells from the Divine list, and Bards don't spontaneously have all Arcane spells. And I don't think it should work that way. That suddenly makes every spellcasting class much stronger than they already are, and it would take giving martials a lot in order for them to keep up.
I doubt it. I’m pretty sure each class will still have its own list, but all Arcane casters will also have access to the Arcane spell list, all Divine casters will have access to the Divine spell list and all Primal casters will have access to the Primal spell list, but that each spellcasting class will also have its own supplemental spell list as well.
I also expect subclasses like EK & AT will have access to the Arcane spell list and a few select Wiz spells from their restricted schools. And I expect that other subclasses (like the Divine Soul Sorcerer) will loose access to additional class related spell lists and just get access to the more limited selections, for example that aforementioned Divine Soul will loose access to the Cleric spell list and instead get access to the Divine spell list.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Feel free to like this change, but I think you''l find that a lot of people like me will disagree. If you don't understand why people don't like this change, then this thread has 8 pages of explaining.
Hmmm... then I hope Wizards explores that option for monster crits. And I would love to see the Reddit post & math too if you could provide a link for it.
I've seen that idea, and I think it probably works better. Anyways, I do want people to get something on crits though, especially spellcasters. I just feel like inspiration is a weak, confusing, and not very helpful mechanic & reward, the former specifically for newer players.
I don't have time to comment on it now, but I find these points interesting. I'd love to here your fourth thing if you remember it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Seems pretty clear to me, but I could be wrong. We will have to wait and see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My only issue with the playtest material is the increased emphasis on inspiration, a mechanic I don't particularly care for (at least in its current state).
Post is here. Still haven't remembered my fourth point, either.