This post is about the new arcana. I would like to single out the most bizarre and controversial decisions and also offer options for their solution. I will say right away that I don’t like the new arcana in so many aspects, but I’m not a hater, I just don’t want the story with the 4th edition of DnD to be repeated. I will try to go through all the problems that hurt my eyes.
Let's start with the races of the new arcana.
The first thing that seems strange to me is the lack of characteristics from races. I understand that the legs like that you can change the stats as you like, but isn't it strange that the race has no predisposition to some kind of stat?
Even in the real world, all people have a talent/predisposition for something like sports - strength/dexterity or science/philosophy - intellect/wisdom. I hope you understand the example. I don't suggest using 5th edition stats. The idea with backstories and stats is good, but it seems to me that the race bonus should also be there. Now everything just looks so that the authors forgot about lore and fantasy stereotypes and now our elves will not be sophisticated and dexterous with a penchant for magic, but apparently there will be orcs. I understand that there are exceptions to the rule, but even so, genes and inherited traits from races remain no matter what you do. (Exceptions for spell polymorph and wish fulfillment) In the section on backstories, I will describe this in a little more detail.
This is the basic oddity in races now briefly about all races and what is wrong with them.
Human.
With this race, everything is fine except for 1 thing.
The problem is his inborn trait "Gifted". It is too unbalanced because it is repeatable and can be taken several times. This turns any human character into a jack-of-all-trades in the banalest way, especially if we take the rogue or bard class.
Aardlings
To be honest, I do not understand why they became a new race and not a subrace of Asimar. The main problem is imbalance. The imbalance shows up in their hostile spells. Remove their spell level 5.
Again, this is just my humble opinion and advice.
Dragonborn
One of the most unpopular races. And in the new arcana, they were again given nothing to make them more interesting.
I have a suggestion which I will describe below and a question. The next question is, why can't Dragonborn be small? We have hybrids now, so why can't a Dragonborn be born of a gnome and a Dragonborn?
A suggestion on how to make the race more playable. All dragons have a trait that with age they become stronger and more dangerous. Why didn't this trait go over to Dragonborn in a stripped-down version? Breath weapons are used by all players up to a maximum of level 2. Then it is useless. Let the breath be pumped every 5 levels.
For example, every 5 levels the breath gains 1 additional die of damage. At level 10, the breath will take the same additional damage as at level 5, and can be recharged additionally if 6 rolls on 1d6. At level 15, we increase the damage. At level 20, additional damage again and the cone is increased by 2 times (30 ft).
The second option is how to make the race more interesting. Grant the Evolution trait to a race. The essence of evolution is the same as the infusion of the artificer. Let every 4 levels, the Dragonborn can choose one evolution without the right to change it. An example of evolution would be to improve breathing, turn resistance into immunity, blindsight, and so on. Of course, for some evolutions, there must be conditions for their receipt.
Dwarves
Why can't dwarves be small creatures? They have a height of 4 feet, and if a hybrid, even less.
Nerf the feeling of vibration. I can understand if they can feel the distance to the target, and get the size, and approximate number, but not the exact location of the target. It's just not normal in terms of game balance.
Elves
Too much magic, remove the 5th spell level.
Gnomes
I have no questions for these guys. They have the same problem as all the races that I described above.
Halflings
I have no questions for these guys.
Orcs.
Why can't an orc be small since we can make a hybrid? The second question is why the orcs became the main race? After all, lore says that orcs are not loved like dark elves. That is, the whole world forgot about the problems with the orcs, their behavior, and so on. Strange decision to make them a playable race.
Tieflings
The problem is the same too much magic, remove level 5.
BACKGROUND
As I said, I like the idea of a backstory, but I think that the characteristics should not come only from it. I suggest making +1 stat come from the race and +2 stat from the background. An alternative would be +1 race, +1 class, +2 background.
Let me explain why I suggest this option.
Firstly, race affects your stat talents, though not as much as long background experience. With the class in the alternative version, the story is the same. Secondly, I know that DnD is not about numbers and math, but about acting out your character. Let's look at one example that was offered to me in one of their discussions.
Let's imagine an orc who was sitting in a cage with a wizard who did not feed the orc and kept him as an animal or a slave for his experiments.
I asked a question to the person who offered me such an example. My idea is that an orc would get a +2 constitution for that kind of backstory, but what would he get +1 for? And I also asked if for such a terrible life the orc would not receive any minuses such as -2 to strength or dexterity, the orc was starving. And if the orc was a slave from very early childhood, then there are questions about intelligence and charisma. I doubt that slave owners will teach their slaves to read and write.
Skill proficiency should also not only be derived from the backstory but class should also affect them.
Now let's take a quick look at the features.
Healer
Bone rerolls treatment. When you make roll a die to determine the number of Hits you recover spell or advantage of this feat "Field Medic", you can reroll the die if it rolled a "1", but you must use the new result.
Doesn't it seem like a trait capable of re-rolling all 1s on dice from level one when the spell is cast is very strong? Let the trait only allow you to reroll the heal from the trait itself.
Gifted
I already wrote this trait should not be repeatable. The trait is very powerful even too much.
Artisan
I would change the discount. For an additional income of 20% from the sale of an item that the character created himself or, for example, improved someone else's item.
Critical Hits
I disagree a bit with the new critical hit system. I don't understand why magic can't crit. I believe that spells can crit, but only those spells that require a hit check from the wizard, such as a fire projectile or a scorching beam.
Magic
And the last point I would like to discuss is magic. The new system of magic is a little unclear to me, but perhaps it will justify itself in the future. Although the division into 3 new arcana can cause problems with the distribution of spells. For example, I don’t understand why wizards can’t heal, because wizards study spells of various types and were the most versatile in DnD. It seems to me that the new list of spells greatly nerfs wizards.
Also, I would like to suggest an idea for wizards, sorcerers, bards, etc. I think everyone has run into the problem that you have a bunch of focus spells and you can only use one of them at a time. Why not increase the number of concentrations that they can maintain at the same time with the growth of the levels of classes that can create magical things?
For example, wizards, priests, druids, warlocks, and sorcerers can last 4 concentrations at level 20. That is, get +1 concentration every 5 levels. Bards, arcane warriors, arcane rogues, rangers, and paladins can only hold 2 focus, but you can add a trait for them to give them +1 focus.
Thanks to everyone who read this. I would love to read your constructive comments.
The races still have their predispositions - dwarves are tough with more hp, orcs have adrenaline rush, halflings have nimbleness. Stats used to pigeonhole classes into certain races, and it doesn't always work. What if your setting is like warcraft or disciples, and your elves are supposed to be forest bodybuilders?
Understand. The setting can change the rules, races, and so on. With this I fully agree. But for example, if according to the background of the character, everything was bad and the character needs to underestimate the stats due to illness or any negative consequences from the background. If the stats are given not only from the backstory, it will be possible to keep the hero in some balance due to restrictions, but if you take only the backstory, a lot of players will get out and make too strong heroes. The main reason is there are no limits to imagination. And if the hero is limited by the GM, then the players will often be unhappy. I say this because I know many such examples even among adults.
The same goes for your question about elves. We are changing the setting, which means we are adapting the rules. If we are talking about DnD, then these are the rules for certain settings such as the forgotten kingdoms, Eberon the last war, etc. They have a certain canon of history and lore. And with the current approach, it turns out that we just throw it away, or am I mistaken?
Just making it more broad and universal, so that same rules could apply to a myriad of worlds. It's better when specific rules are an addition to basic rules, rather than partially grafted substitute for them.
Yes, you understand everything correctly. Some of the changes are too powerful and have no restrictions for players. There can be no hero without a single flaw. The rest of the book hasn't changed at all. That is, all the weak races, as they were weak, remained. This problem is not limited to races.
The races still have their predispositions - dwarves are tough with more hp, orcs have adrenaline rush, halflings have nimbleness. Stats used to pigeonhole classes into certain races, and it doesn't always work. What if your setting is like warcraft or disciples, and your elves are supposed to be forest bodybuilders?
IMHO, in your example I would create a home brew race for that setting as no general idea of race fits.
When this idea was posted in the past I propose a race give 2 +1's, background gives 1 +1 and class gives 1 +1, with a max of +2, +1, +1. Note it would take more work in racial, background and class descriptions with often saying pick from a list of stats. Note in the past it was said that +2, +1, +1 was too powerful.
To me the above idea emphasizes benefits gained from your parents (race), what you did when young (background) and what training you pursued (class).
Power of races: In general I think races need to be reworked but that could change based on what the rest of the game looks like. But not because of power but because in general of what is in them and the feats they are given (in general).
Note on Humans: In general I think humans need to have more tools/games/instruments/vehicles/languages then they do and maybe get an extra 1 from a list provided on the background and class description.
But again I would like to see the whole game before I make any final decision.
Genes and inherited traits are represented by your racial abilities. The ASI bonus now represents your lifestyle and training from your background. This is a very straight forward and easy to understand concept that I feel is a lot more intuitive than ASIs coming from both race and background at the same time.
It's also more reflective of how people and societies work, in my opinion. Two humans are going to have vastly different life experiences and training. There's no reason two orcs wouldn't be just as diverse. An orc medicine woman who spent her life acting as a midwife to her chieftain delivering babies is going to have radically different ASI bonuses compared to one of the chief's elite warriors who spent his entire life training, dueling, and fighting in battles, even if they have the same pure biological traits like Powerful Build and Darkvision.
The "why can't they be small?" is a legitimate question though. If humans can be small.. What does that represent, exactly? And why can humans be smaller than elves when elves are supposed to be shorter than humans?
Genes and inherited traits are represented by your racial abilities. The ASI bonus now represents your lifestyle and training from your background. This is a very straight forward and easy to understand concept that I feel is a lot more intuitive than ASIs coming from both race and background at the same time.
It's also more reflective of how people and societies work, in my opinion. Two humans are going to have vastly different life experiences and training. There's no reason two orcs wouldn't be just as diverse. An orc medicine woman who spent her life acting as a midwife to her chieftain delivering babies is going to have radically different ASI bonuses compared to one of the chief's elite warriors who spent his entire life training, dueling, and fighting in battles, even if they have the same pure biological traits like Powerful Build and Darkvision.
The "why can't they be small?" is a legitimate question though. If humans can be small.. What does that represent, exactly? And why can humans be smaller than elves when elves are supposed to be shorter than humans?
The problem I see here is assuming orcs are humans as we are today, there is a good chance that if 2 distinct races would not have the same "growth" from the same experience.
Just from reading the posts above and remember this same topic from years ago, people often assumed different species would learn, be as social, use the same amount of tools, etc as other species would. When in fact I think they would not. An intelligent dog quadruped and the same but a cat would be vastly different. Every species would not simple be a modern human with a mask and accompanying fur/scales/wings/etc.
I agree that you need to see the whole game. In the meantime, just discussing the most critical moments)
I understand but having seen game in alpha and beta development things in the document at the beginning that seem unusual at times are explained satisfactorily later on. Or after reading the whole doc it is a minor issue vs others presented.
Genes and inherited traits are represented by your racial abilities. The ASI bonus now represents your lifestyle and training from your background. This is a very straight forward and easy to understand concept that I feel is a lot more intuitive than ASIs coming from both race and background at the same time.
It's also more reflective of how people and societies work, in my opinion. Two humans are going to have vastly different life experiences and training. There's no reason two orcs wouldn't be just as diverse. An orc medicine woman who spent her life acting as a midwife to her chieftain delivering babies is going to have radically different ASI bonuses compared to one of the chief's elite warriors who spent his entire life training, dueling, and fighting in battles, even if they have the same pure biological traits like Powerful Build and Darkvision.
The "why can't they be small?" is a legitimate question though. If humans can be small.. What does that represent, exactly? And why can humans be smaller than elves when elves are supposed to be shorter than humans?
The problem I see here is assuming orcs are humans as we are today, there is a good chance that if 2 distinct races would not have the same "growth" from the same experience.
Just from reading the posts above and remember this same topic from years ago, people often assumed different species would learn, be as social, use the same amount of tools, etc as other species would. When in fact I think they would not. An intelligent dog quadruped and the same but a cat would be vastly different. Every species would not simple be a modern human with a mask and accompanying fur/scales/wings/etc.
Sure, but this very much is more of a science fiction trope than a heroic fantasy one, and growth rates as represented by exp and stats are heavy abstractions anyway. Just like the Strength stat isn't just your physical strength, it is also your speed and accuracy in melee combat with certain arbitrarily chosen weapons.
I don't think 5e was ever a good system to explore the level of biological nuance you're describing. A +2 to INT is basically nothing when it comes to tackling such a complex topic.
Besides, that sort of thing can also be better demonstrated through actual roleplay than numbers. Lizardfolk have the sort of alien mentality you're describing, but it is entirely up to the player to actually enforce it. Lizardfolk happen to be my favorite race partially because of their unique way of seeing the world, but MOST races in DnD aren't described with that level of detail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This post is about the new arcana. I would like to single out the most bizarre and controversial decisions and also offer options for their solution. I will say right away that I don’t like the new arcana in so many aspects, but I’m not a hater, I just don’t want the story with the 4th edition of DnD to be repeated. I will try to go through all the problems that hurt my eyes.
Let's start with the races of the new arcana.
The first thing that seems strange to me is the lack of characteristics from races. I understand that the legs like that you can change the stats as you like, but isn't it strange that the race has no predisposition to some kind of stat?
Even in the real world, all people have a talent/predisposition for something like sports - strength/dexterity or science/philosophy - intellect/wisdom. I hope you understand the example. I don't suggest using 5th edition stats. The idea with backstories and stats is good, but it seems to me that the race bonus should also be there. Now everything just looks so that the authors forgot about lore and fantasy stereotypes and now our elves will not be sophisticated and dexterous with a penchant for magic, but apparently there will be orcs. I understand that there are exceptions to the rule, but even so, genes and inherited traits from races remain no matter what you do. (Exceptions for spell polymorph and wish fulfillment)
In the section on backstories, I will describe this in a little more detail.
This is the basic oddity in races now briefly about all races and what is wrong with them.
Human.
With this race, everything is fine except for 1 thing.
The problem is his inborn trait "Gifted". It is too unbalanced because it is repeatable and can be taken several times. This turns any human character into a jack-of-all-trades in the banalest way, especially if we take the rogue or bard class.
Aardlings
To be honest, I do not understand why they became a new race and not a subrace of Asimar. The main problem is imbalance. The imbalance shows up in their hostile spells. Remove their spell level 5.
Again, this is just my humble opinion and advice.
Dragonborn
One of the most unpopular races. And in the new arcana, they were again given nothing to make them more interesting.
I have a suggestion which I will describe below and a question.
The next question is, why can't Dragonborn be small? We have hybrids now, so why can't a Dragonborn be born of a gnome and a Dragonborn?
A suggestion on how to make the race more playable. All dragons have a trait that with age they become stronger and more dangerous. Why didn't this trait go over to Dragonborn in a stripped-down version? Breath weapons are used by all players up to a maximum of level 2. Then it is useless. Let the breath be pumped every 5 levels.
For example, every 5 levels the breath gains 1 additional die of damage. At level 10, the breath will take the same additional damage as at level 5, and can be recharged additionally if 6 rolls on 1d6. At level 15, we increase the damage. At level 20, additional damage again and the cone is increased by 2 times (30 ft).
The second option is how to make the race more interesting. Grant the Evolution trait to a race.
The essence of evolution is the same as the infusion of the artificer. Let every 4 levels, the Dragonborn can choose one evolution without the right to change it. An example of evolution would be to improve breathing, turn resistance into immunity, blindsight, and so on. Of course, for some evolutions, there must be conditions for their receipt.
Dwarves
Why can't dwarves be small creatures? They have a height of 4 feet, and if a hybrid, even less.
Nerf the feeling of vibration. I can understand if they can feel the distance to the target, and get the size, and approximate number, but not the exact location of the target. It's just not normal in terms of game balance.
Elves
Too much magic, remove the 5th spell level.
Gnomes
I have no questions for these guys. They have the same problem as all the races that I described above.
Halflings
I have no questions for these guys.
Orcs.
Why can't an orc be small since we can make a hybrid? The second question is why the orcs became the main race? After all, lore says that orcs are not loved like dark elves. That is, the whole world forgot about the problems with the orcs, their behavior, and so on. Strange decision to make them a playable race.
Tieflings
The problem is the same too much magic, remove level 5.
BACKGROUND
As I said, I like the idea of a backstory, but I think that the characteristics should not come only from it.
I suggest making +1 stat come from the race and +2 stat from the background. An alternative would be +1 race, +1 class, +2 background.
Let me explain why I suggest this option.
Firstly, race affects your stat talents, though not as much as long background experience. With the class in the alternative version, the story is the same.
Secondly, I know that DnD is not about numbers and math, but about acting out your character. Let's look at one example that was offered to me in one of their discussions.
Let's imagine an orc who was sitting in a cage with a wizard who did not feed the orc and kept him as an animal or a slave for his experiments.
I asked a question to the person who offered me such an example. My idea is that an orc would get a +2 constitution for that kind of backstory, but what would he get +1 for? And I also asked if for such a terrible life the orc would not receive any minuses such as -2 to strength or dexterity, the orc was starving. And if the orc was a slave from very early childhood, then there are questions about intelligence and charisma. I doubt that slave owners will teach their slaves to read and write.
Skill proficiency should also not only be derived from the backstory but class should also affect them.
Now let's take a quick look at the features.
Healer
Bone rerolls treatment. When you make roll a die to determine the number of Hits you recover spell or advantage of this feat "Field Medic", you can reroll the die if it rolled a "1", but you must use the new result.
Doesn't it seem like a trait capable of re-rolling all 1s on dice from level one when the spell is cast is very strong? Let the trait only allow you to reroll the heal from the trait itself.
Gifted
I already wrote this trait should not be repeatable. The trait is very powerful even too much.
Artisan
I would change the discount. For an additional income of 20% from the sale of an item that the character created himself or, for example, improved someone else's item.
Critical Hits
I disagree a bit with the new critical hit system. I don't understand why magic can't crit. I believe that spells can crit, but only those spells that require a hit check from the wizard, such as a fire projectile or a scorching beam.
Magic
And the last point I would like to discuss is magic. The new system of magic is a little unclear to me, but perhaps it will justify itself in the future. Although the division into 3 new arcana can cause problems with the distribution of spells. For example, I don’t understand why wizards can’t heal, because wizards study spells of various types and were the most versatile in DnD. It seems to me that the new list of spells greatly nerfs wizards.
Also, I would like to suggest an idea for wizards, sorcerers, bards, etc. I think everyone has run into the problem that you have a bunch of focus spells and you can only use one of them at a time. Why not increase the number of concentrations that they can maintain at the same time with the growth of the levels of classes that can create magical things?
For example, wizards, priests, druids, warlocks, and sorcerers can last 4 concentrations at level 20. That is, get +1 concentration every 5 levels.
Bards, arcane warriors, arcane rogues, rangers, and paladins can only hold 2 focus, but you can add a trait for them to give them +1 focus.
Thanks to everyone who read this. I would love to read your constructive comments.
The races still have their predispositions - dwarves are tough with more hp, orcs have adrenaline rush, halflings have nimbleness. Stats used to pigeonhole classes into certain races, and it doesn't always work. What if your setting is like warcraft or disciples, and your elves are supposed to be forest bodybuilders?
Understand. The setting can change the rules, races, and so on. With this I fully agree. But for example, if according to the background of the character, everything was bad and the character needs to underestimate the stats due to illness or any negative consequences from the background. If the stats are given not only from the backstory, it will be possible to keep the hero in some balance due to restrictions, but if you take only the backstory, a lot of players will get out and make too strong heroes. The main reason is there are no limits to imagination. And if the hero is limited by the GM, then the players will often be unhappy. I say this because I know many such examples even among adults.
The same goes for your question about elves. We are changing the setting, which means we are adapting the rules. If we are talking about DnD, then these are the rules for certain settings such as the forgotten kingdoms, Eberon the last war, etc. They have a certain canon of history and lore. And with the current approach, it turns out that we just throw it away, or am I mistaken?
Just making it more broad and universal, so that same rules could apply to a myriad of worlds. It's better when specific rules are an addition to basic rules, rather than partially grafted substitute for them.
If I'm reading this post correctly, your general concern is that everything is too powerful, which could easily mean that none of it is.
Edit: This includes things like Tiefling, which have barely changed from the PHB.
Yes, you understand everything correctly. Some of the changes are too powerful and have no restrictions for players. There can be no hero without a single flaw. The rest of the book hasn't changed at all. That is, all the weak races, as they were weak, remained. This problem is not limited to races.
IMHO, in your example I would create a home brew race for that setting as no general idea of race fits.
To the OP:
When this idea was posted in the past I propose a race give 2 +1's, background gives 1 +1 and class gives 1 +1, with a max of +2, +1, +1. Note it would take more work in racial, background and class descriptions with often saying pick from a list of stats. Note in the past it was said that +2, +1, +1 was too powerful.
To me the above idea emphasizes benefits gained from your parents (race), what you did when young (background) and what training you pursued (class).
Power of races: In general I think races need to be reworked but that could change based on what the rest of the game looks like. But not because of power but because in general of what is in them and the feats they are given (in general).
Note on Humans: In general I think humans need to have more tools/games/instruments/vehicles/languages then they do and maybe get an extra 1 from a list provided on the background and class description.
But again I would like to see the whole game before I make any final decision.
Genes and inherited traits are represented by your racial abilities. The ASI bonus now represents your lifestyle and training from your background. This is a very straight forward and easy to understand concept that I feel is a lot more intuitive than ASIs coming from both race and background at the same time.
It's also more reflective of how people and societies work, in my opinion. Two humans are going to have vastly different life experiences and training. There's no reason two orcs wouldn't be just as diverse. An orc medicine woman who spent her life acting as a midwife to her chieftain delivering babies is going to have radically different ASI bonuses compared to one of the chief's elite warriors who spent his entire life training, dueling, and fighting in battles, even if they have the same pure biological traits like Powerful Build and Darkvision.
The "why can't they be small?" is a legitimate question though. If humans can be small.. What does that represent, exactly? And why can humans be smaller than elves when elves are supposed to be shorter than humans?
The problem I see here is assuming orcs are humans as we are today, there is a good chance that if 2 distinct races would not have the same "growth" from the same experience.
Just from reading the posts above and remember this same topic from years ago, people often assumed different species would learn, be as social, use the same amount of tools, etc as other species would. When in fact I think they would not. An intelligent dog quadruped and the same but a cat would be vastly different. Every species would not simple be a modern human with a mask and accompanying fur/scales/wings/etc.
I agree that you need to see the whole game. In the meantime, just discussing the most critical moments)
I understand but having seen game in alpha and beta development things in the document at the beginning that seem unusual at times are explained satisfactorily later on. Or after reading the whole doc it is a minor issue vs others presented.
Sure, but this very much is more of a science fiction trope than a heroic fantasy one, and growth rates as represented by exp and stats are heavy abstractions anyway. Just like the Strength stat isn't just your physical strength, it is also your speed and accuracy in melee combat with certain arbitrarily chosen weapons.
I don't think 5e was ever a good system to explore the level of biological nuance you're describing. A +2 to INT is basically nothing when it comes to tackling such a complex topic.
Besides, that sort of thing can also be better demonstrated through actual roleplay than numbers. Lizardfolk have the sort of alien mentality you're describing, but it is entirely up to the player to actually enforce it. Lizardfolk happen to be my favorite race partially because of their unique way of seeing the world, but MOST races in DnD aren't described with that level of detail.