Ok, this thread is intended to be a collection of feedback people think didn't fit into the survey but wanted to express and discuss, given that the survey felt very limiting. In hopes, it catches the eyes of the Devs.
Here is my personal feedback on the current UA provided, which I didn't mange to fit into the survey:
1. The D20 Test is a great simplification and streamline for the system, but it should be called D20 Challenge. Since D20 Test sounds a bit like a surprise math test on a Monday.
2. The auto fail on Natural 1 and auto success on Natural 20, are ok I believe, but it needs to better explain how a success or failure can be defined especially for ability checks which are too broad to simplify like that and clarify for newer DMs and Players, what they mean with "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance" While experienced DMs know when to call for a Roll and when not to, new DMs may be easily pressured or persuaded into letting Players Roll for things the character has no chance to accomplish at all. For example, when the DM lets the player roll a persuasion check after they asked the King to give them his title and crown, a Natural 20 success in this case would be them becoming the King but the King not throwing them into Prison for their disrespect and instead laughing it off as a great joke, becoming a bit more friendly to them. The same way, a character with a -2 or so in Strength shouldn't be able to lift a giant boulder, which is the size of a house or so. While new DMs or even experienced DMs may let players roll for funny situations like that, it is mostly to see how spectacularly they fail to create a funny situation. Never should it make the impossible possible in therms of ability checks. As for saving throws and to hit attacks, the new ruling of auto success and auto fail is great as it is, as it gives every character at least a tiny chance to avoid harmful effects as well as adding in a tiny chance for ultra skilled characters to feel the nobody is perfect moment.
3. The way they changed inspiration has a few issues. While it is a neat mechanic for the Human to gain one after a Long Rest and for the musician feat, gaining Inspiration every time someone rolls a Nat 20 feels overly forced and will cause many issues, and here is why: Firstly, the Natural 20 itself should be the hype moment and the players and DM should focus on how epic the success of a certain task could be. Gaining Inspiration on top of that kind of feels forced onto it simply to make the Inspiration a game mechanic and draws attention away from the Natural 20 itself. Secondly, since it is very luck depended, it may feel very unfair in a gaming group if the very lucky player gets more free chances to be lucky while the player who failed a lot gets nothing. Especially when it comes to critical hits, this will cause a lot of problems. While Melee classes with multiple attacks per turn have way more chances to get this free Inspiration and to steamroll with it in power during a combat, most classes with only one attack or casters who can only cast one spell per turn some of which don't even include a D20 roll, will feel like they are being unfairly treated atleast let casters add their spell casting modifer to the spell damage rolls to up minimum damage like weapons do. This will inevitably cause jealousy to grow on many Tables, especially online, where friendly bonds between players may not run as deep sometimes as in groups where you sit face to face on a table. While I do like the new rules of decay for inspiration on a Long Rest and the no stacking accumulation rules, as that encourages using it and not keeping it like the Master Ball in Pokémon games just to never use it at all. Gaining it on every nat 20 is a bad game design choice, which doesn't keep players emotions and game fairness in mind. I liked Inspiration as a DM mechanic that was free from all other game aspects. I love handing out inspiration, to players if they made it on time for the session as that rewarded and encouraged being on time and not missing, while it also didn't overly punish those who came late or missed a session. Furthermore, I also used Inspiration as it was described in the DMG as a reward for good Role-play moments. I still remember fondly the moment the Inspiration I gave to everyone for spending a funny day in a spa resort before facing the final boss of which they know could possibly cost one or more of them their life. The session ran itself with every PC simply bonding over ridiculous stuff like ping pong and barbecue, I rewarded inspiration at the end for the great RP of anxiety and friendship, and it saved a character's life on his last Death saving throw, turning the natural 1 into a Natural 20, letting him regain 1 hit point and Disintegrating the BBEG from deaths door. Thus, I would like to keep inspiration a DM mechanic that is independent of all in game rewards like gold and items etc.
4. I think the new way grapple and slow condition work are great, but there needs to be a change in wording. The current "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler" should exclude the Tiny part and simply be "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler". This is because it will make things strange when a tiny creature grapples another Tiny creature. As well as causing strange limitations on the ability to implement playable races sized Tiny or Large, which should be a thing for certain races.
5. On the topic of size, why is there no small option for the Dwarf? Kinda miss that to be a thing. While on the larger side of all small creatures and the smaller side of all medium creatures, I think the dwarf deserves the ability to be small. And to add onto that, I believe there is no harm in fixing some races like the Fairy to allow them to be Small or Tiny as player choice and races like the Minotaur or Centaur to be medium or Large like their monster stat block counterparts. I believe the planed rework of the DMG and PHB will provide a great opportunity to add a few basic rules for player characters, outside the small and medium range. For example, exclaiming that a weapon's damage dice doesn't increase with the size of the weapon for players like it does with monster stat blocks would be a good balance change. Or stating that a creature cant make use of its flying speed if it is carrying something above its base carry capacity (not push drag lift range) or something twice its size, would greatly help balance flying creatures as well as Tiny creatures with flight abilities like the Fairy. Maybe a general rule on movement speed, seeing as you streamline movement speeds across the board, stating that All playable races of size small to medium have 30 ft. all Large ones have 40 and all tiny ones have 20 or so would be neat and rich in fantasy. Especially if you separate flying speed from movement speed again. I had some great, hilarious moments when a Tiny fairy player got stuck in a fly trap and his wings were stuck together by the glue, so he had to walk for a bit. Having a slow walking speed and tiny size meant that the house he was infiltrating turned into a giant mountain of parkour challenges he didn't expect, but caused great fun for the table. As well as having the large Minotaur character have trouble fitting into buildings often having to sleep in stables, or accidentally breaking stuff or not fitting into a smaller corridor are decent drawbacks for the extra size to use in combat and can be really fun. Such rules will also open up a greater variety of new Playable races to add in the future.
6. I kind of get the Ardlings intend to be the counterpart of the Tiefling outside the Aasimar, especially since Aasimar is meant to represent the Angelic celestials while the Ardling is supposed to represent the Guardinal celestials. But to be fair, I would have preferred a proper Beastman race over a new celestial one, where the Aasimar already neatly filled the spot. For example, a race that would cater to all who wish to play a beast like humanoid, would need to open the ability to choose between looking either mostly human with just animal ears and maybe a tail or so as well as more animalistic which can resemble the Tabaxi like style and so on. (not gonna state the F word) but I guess anyone who DMed online will know what many people want to play as. By simply allowing such a visual option and giving them traits like keen senses (smell, hearing or sight etc) and maybe the ability to talk to animals or a swim speed if amphibian or fly speed if avian etc so would make for a great and versatile race that caters to a lot of people, from those who like their anime to those who like F... characters I guess. Stuff like Tabaxi, Owlin, Leonin, Lizardfolk and so on would fall under this category, and them being humanoid and able to create offsprings with other humanoid races would easily explain the in between style of looks with just a few bestial features and mostly human or so looks.
7. Lastly, as for the background, I love the new streamlined style. Adding proficiency and ability scores there is a great customization and gameplay wise decision. But I am missing out on a few things that help especially new players come up with their own background story. For example, referencing to and old but compact single tables for flaws, ideals and goals their character could have while stating that they encourage coming up with your own when making your character's story and so on. Since no character is or should be perfect and every character needs a goal etc. in their backstory, these small guidelines add a lot of creativity to their character and story. It would also help if in the new DMG and PHB would state that it is advised to create or at least finalize the character together with the DM, so they can provide feedback and information about the world and or setting the Module or Homebrew World is playing in. From my experience, nothing feels worse than bringing a fully premade character to a session where nothing of it fits into the world the story plays in. Like a spelljammer character thrown into a Storm Kings Thunder setting or a character who was intended to slowly uncover the lost mystery of enchanting items in a low magic world and so on thrown into an eberron campaign where everyone knows how to do it already and magic items are overly common, totally throwing that players into discomfort for the story they had in mind for their character. So ye do make sure to include some wording to at least hint on the fact the DM isn't your enemy when creating a char, but your biggest ally in making sure it has its place in the world and has a good chance to get its own "character arc" so to say. Heck, as DM, I even added an entire new continent and hometown for a Samurai player into my world.
So that so far was my feedback and ideas, make sure to add your own feedback and thoughts as comments i would love to read them and hopefully the Devs see them and think a few things over.
Man most everything revolving around the d20 test I agree with. Ardling I still like that they are guardinal like but felt they should drop the wings and give some more beastial options with them. The motivations being gone from character development could /should be reintroduced somehow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
When a character wants to roll for some impossible physical action, just ask the player. "What is your current hit points." That MAY have him/her back down from wanting to make the roll.
-----
Ardlings not a fan of the race and especially not for a core race.
-----
Luck. "Why can I give someone disadvantage to hit me but not to have disadvantage against a spell I cast?"
-----
Work on wording on D20 test. FROM UA (BOLD BY ME)
The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
it affects all three of those rolls. Does this mean a +1 dagger adds to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. May need to work on wording.
-----
Why have Stat bonus linked to Backgrounds? Since they are being removed from race, just have players decide Stat Bonus when they determine their stats. After using one of the methods for rolling/determining your stat scores and assigning them to the desired stats you may place +1 to any three stats or a +1 to one stat and +2 to any other stats (You may not add +1 and 2 to the same stat)
"On the topic of size, why is there no small option for the Dwarf? "
There are no Small sized dwarves, elves or orcs. In the case of orcs, it's probably because it does odd things to their powerful build trait. Like...What's the point of carrying stuff as if you're one size larger when you small? It's like having a halflings be medium size. It's just silly.
In the case of elves and dwarves... Its probably to avoid the overlap with gnomes. Small, fae-like being and small crafter.
I am still heavily against the auto fail on a nat 1. I am a bit more okay on the auto success on a nat 20, but honestly if rather not have it. For the context of the asking a king for his crown, I do agree that rolling high enough may let someone pass it off as a joke and not get themselves thrown in prison. To be honest, I don't have too much of an opinion on a nat 20 auto success.
My main issue is the nat 1 auto fail for how it is essentially a 5% chance of negating any investment a player puts into their character. If someone actually put in the investment to bump up a skill or saving throw so that they can succeed on a nat 1, I feel that they should be allowed to do so.
Pack Tactics made a video game over this (and other rules) and I think it is a good watch. Honestly can probably explain the Nat 1/20 issue better than I can, though he is a bit more harsh on the nat 20 auto success.
When a character wants to roll for some impossible physical action, just ask the player. "What is your current hit points." That MAY have him/her back down from wanting to make the roll.
-----
Work on wording on D20 test. FROM UA (BOLD BY ME)
The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
it affects all three of those rolls. Does this mean a +1 dagger adds to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. May need to work on wording.
1) Player characters should never ask to make a roll. They just state what they want to do. The DM decides if a roll is needed. This is even more critical of a rule now that Skill Checks can provide you with Inspiration on a nat 20.
2) Magic weapons (like dagger, +1) already state "You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon"... This already is clear that it does not apply to all d20 Tests.
SO.. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. (Like I +1 dagger affecting the To Hit d20 test) Unless we say it doesn't or a specific feat/skill/ability/item that affects one of the stated D20 tests and will therefore NOT affect all three of those rolls. I hope that clears up that sentence.
SO.. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. (Like I +1 dagger affecting the To Hit d20 test) Unless we say it doesn't or a specific feat/skill/ability/item that affects one of the stated D20 tests and will therefore NOT affect all three of those rolls. I hope that clears up that sentence.
The +1 dagger makes no mention of affecting d20 Tests. It specifically states it affects only 1 subset of d20 Tests, that being the attack roll.
The general rule does not say "if something in the game affects any of the d20 Tests, it affects them all". But the mere fact that you and I are interpreting this sentence differently is enough for me to support changing the wording to make it more clear.
The wording is fine. If something affects "a d20 test" (i.e. the OPT Lucky feat specifically naming 'd20 Test'), it affects all three types of rolls. If it affects one of the subtypes (i.e. a +1 dagger), it affects the stated subtype. The rule does not work backwards and reading it that way is weird and unnatural.
1. I agree with the Challenge language instead of Test.
2. Regardless of how they work this, there will be some confusion for new DMs. Perhaps something in the DMG to cover this.
3. Currently, Inspiration is a underused feature. My players can't even find it on their character sheets. I like the Human racial feature more than the nat 20 feature, but I am okay with it, as it will put more inspiration in the game.
4. I have no opinion on this.
5. There is too much emphasis on little people. Too many races have small options. WHY? To fit cute anime memes? Gensai, Humans, Custom Lineage, Ardlings, Tieflings, Tortles?, Changlings, who else? It's not that I am against this, per se, it's just I'm for traditional races. Dwarves are medium, have been medium since at least 3rd edition. Not because they are TALLER, but because they are STOCKIER. (or WIDER, if you prefer)
6. Ardlings should NOT be a core race. If you want to have them, great, but Bojack Celestial Horseman shouldn't be the standard in the game. Tabaxi, Kenku, Shifters, and Aarakocras are all optional races. Ardlings shouldn't get preferential treatment because they happen to be the new latest thing. Also I agree that if you want a beastial race to encompass all manner of animal people, it shouldn't also be a celestial. I think giving a beast-person race animal abilities like keen senses or something like that would be cool. But we already have a race like that, it's called Shifters. Just include more options for Shifters and make them core. Like we did with dragonborn.
7. I also like the background changes and agree with the notion that you should run a session zero to build the party. That is the weakness of the current Adventurer's League (besides the treasure point system, restriction on character options, etc) is that everyone makes their characters separately and then you randomly build a party with whomever shows up.
Why two races with extra movement on a bonus action? Now aardlings and orcs can just move three times? Limited use, sure, but not too limited the higher level you go. This was largely limited to misty step or other teleport effects, not straight up extra movement, which is different , or to the rogue's cunning action ability. And high elves still get misty step. With this being normal movement and with the grapple rules changing to allow a grapple on a hit with an unarmed strike, this enables some funky chain movement shenanigans even with the half speed for the grappler. And the aardlings flying - I have an issue with it being flying rather than jumping. I feel if you are a race that always has a flying speed it's no problem, but for a race with a very temporary flying speed, questions about height and moving in 3 dimensions will come up more. Like how much movement is required to fly over creatures and questions about momentum - you fly 30 ft in a straight line and drop straight down? Can you move a grappled target that is too heavy to carry while flying (or can you "fly/walk"?) I think making it a jump would remove a lot of questions around it.
How do you handle a low magic campaign with this UA? Magic seems more accessible and common with the 1st level feat magic initiate (and several races getting spells, including the new aardlings.) 5e had a lot of magic in it anyway, but without an automatic free feat at level 1, this seemed much less of an issue to me. Some of the racial magic abilities read to me like spell-like abilities that could make sense even in a low-magic world. Even in Strixhaven it seemed less of an issue because it was a magic school setting and easy enough to restrict those backgrounds to it. I never liked the idea of banning anything - like if someone really wanted to be a magic user in a low-magic campaign, I would allow it with a discussion of what to expect. But I don't see a way around banning the magic initiate feat for a low magic setting - it's by definition not a low magic setting if every baker and butcher and candlestick maker can be a magic initiate. I guess this isn't a huge deal - can ban this feat, can ban classes, whatever - but even in a normal campaign this feels like magic just got way more common and less special. Like you're not "buying" the access to magic in any way, you just learned it in your basket weaving class because why not. I thought of the magic initiate feat like representing those rare sparks of talent or befitting a magic using class that might have trained up to earn those additional spells.
Calling it a d20 Test is fine. The term "test" is used by other systems. It's fine here.
I don't think a lot of clarification is necessary. These rules are player-facing. They aren't intended to serve as guidance for the DM, beyond setting the boundary for what a d20 Test ought to be.
I don't actually have a problem with more Inspiration. Characters with multiple attacks means more opportunities for a 20. This, naturally, translates to more Inspiration, and Inspiration can be passed around the party. The spellcasters with fewer attacks will always have more raw power. Making the martial classes better at "farming" Inspiration gives them some soft power to make them better at supporting the party.
No, the Tiny line needs to be here. Otherwise, a halfling or gnome is going to be slowed while carrying a frog in its hands.
An interesting idea, and one I'm not entirely opposed to. I'm still partial to WFRP2e where dwarfs were too small to ride horses and needed ponies. But this is going to come down to execution.
A catch-all beastfolk might be more trouble than its worth. How many arbitrary breaking points would there need to be?
All of that is probably coming down the pipe. Right now, the concern is mechanical balance. That said, the new mechanics of the backgrounds are terrific for storytelling. I've made multiple characters, both to play and DM for, and didn't have a problem.
What I think is important is why the changes have been made and how those changes interact with other changes in later 1D&D playtest material. So why do monsters not get to crit? Why the change to auto fail? Did the designers look at the math behind the use a tool and skill to get advantage and know how it changes the nat 1 vs nat 20 %'s? etc.
I am glad that people have games they like and maybe dislike but in general the people I have played 5e with did not like the changes or disliked them enough to not playtest them at all (note there is also the issue of there is not really enough to playtest to see all of the interactions the PT doc is very basic in nature and IMHO most people should be able to form an informed opinion with out having to roll dice and slice mice (but again there are lots of different types of people so maybe some need to playtest the 1D&D doc))
Having said that it is possible that class and monster changes would "fix" the changes some how but without seeing how they interact it is tough to say but I am keeping an open mind.
1. The D20 Test is a great simplification and streamline for the system, but it should be called D20 Challenge. Since D20 Test sounds a bit like a surprise math test on a Monday.
4. I think the new way grapple and slow condition work are great, but there needs to be a change in wording. The current "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler" should exclude the Tiny part and simply be "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler". This is because it will make things strange when a tiny creature grapples another Tiny creature. As well as causing strange limitations on the ability to implement playable races sized Tiny or Large, which should be a thing for certain races.
Okay first off, are you suggesting that you do not like surprise math tests on Monday {he says with an incredulous smile} When do you think Surprise math tests should be given, TUESDAYS, be realistic.
As to tiny not being slowed dragging a tiny creature, that is absolutely realistic. This is because while surface area increases exponentially squared, volume and thus mass increases exponentially at cubic levels. This is why a beetle the size of a bread crumb can lift six times its own weight but is also why if you put the weight of a full-grown elephant on the elephants back, the elephant would be crushed to death, so according to the laws of physics that is realistic, I think.
Ok, this thread is intended to be a collection of feedback people think didn't fit into the survey but wanted to express and discuss, given that the survey felt very limiting. In hopes, it catches the eyes of the Devs.
Here is my personal feedback on the current UA provided, which I didn't mange to fit into the survey:
1. The D20 Test is a great simplification and streamline for the system, but it should be called D20 Challenge. Since D20 Test sounds a bit like a surprise math test on a Monday.
2. The auto fail on Natural 1 and auto success on Natural 20, are ok I believe, but it needs to better explain how a success or failure can be defined especially for ability checks which are too broad to simplify like that and clarify for newer DMs and Players, what they mean with "The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance" While experienced DMs know when to call for a Roll and when not to, new DMs may be easily pressured or persuaded into letting Players Roll for things the character has no chance to accomplish at all. For example, when the DM lets the player roll a persuasion check after they asked the King to give them his title and crown, a Natural 20 success in this case would be them becoming the King but the King not throwing them into Prison for their disrespect and instead laughing it off as a great joke, becoming a bit more friendly to them. The same way, a character with a -2 or so in Strength shouldn't be able to lift a giant boulder, which is the size of a house or so. While new DMs or even experienced DMs may let players roll for funny situations like that, it is mostly to see how spectacularly they fail to create a funny situation. Never should it make the impossible possible in therms of ability checks. As for saving throws and to hit attacks, the new ruling of auto success and auto fail is great as it is, as it gives every character at least a tiny chance to avoid harmful effects as well as adding in a tiny chance for ultra skilled characters to feel the nobody is perfect moment.
3. The way they changed inspiration has a few issues. While it is a neat mechanic for the Human to gain one after a Long Rest and for the musician feat, gaining Inspiration every time someone rolls a Nat 20 feels overly forced and will cause many issues, and here is why: Firstly, the Natural 20 itself should be the hype moment and the players and DM should focus on how epic the success of a certain task could be. Gaining Inspiration on top of that kind of feels forced onto it simply to make the Inspiration a game mechanic and draws attention away from the Natural 20 itself. Secondly, since it is very luck depended, it may feel very unfair in a gaming group if the very lucky player gets more free chances to be lucky while the player who failed a lot gets nothing. Especially when it comes to critical hits, this will cause a lot of problems. While Melee classes with multiple attacks per turn have way more chances to get this free Inspiration and to steamroll with it in power during a combat, most classes with only one attack or casters who can only cast one spell per turn some of which don't even include a D20 roll, will feel like they are being unfairly treated atleast let casters add their spell casting modifer to the spell damage rolls to up minimum damage like weapons do. This will inevitably cause jealousy to grow on many Tables, especially online, where friendly bonds between players may not run as deep sometimes as in groups where you sit face to face on a table. While I do like the new rules of decay for inspiration on a Long Rest and the no stacking accumulation rules, as that encourages using it and not keeping it like the Master Ball in Pokémon games just to never use it at all. Gaining it on every nat 20 is a bad game design choice, which doesn't keep players emotions and game fairness in mind. I liked Inspiration as a DM mechanic that was free from all other game aspects. I love handing out inspiration, to players if they made it on time for the session as that rewarded and encouraged being on time and not missing, while it also didn't overly punish those who came late or missed a session. Furthermore, I also used Inspiration as it was described in the DMG as a reward for good Role-play moments. I still remember fondly the moment the Inspiration I gave to everyone for spending a funny day in a spa resort before facing the final boss of which they know could possibly cost one or more of them their life. The session ran itself with every PC simply bonding over ridiculous stuff like ping pong and barbecue, I rewarded inspiration at the end for the great RP of anxiety and friendship, and it saved a character's life on his last Death saving throw, turning the natural 1 into a Natural 20, letting him regain 1 hit point and Disintegrating the BBEG from deaths door. Thus, I would like to keep inspiration a DM mechanic that is independent of all in game rewards like gold and items etc.
4. I think the new way grapple and slow condition work are great, but there needs to be a change in wording. The current "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler" should exclude the Tiny part and simply be "The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler". This is because it will make things strange when a tiny creature grapples another Tiny creature. As well as causing strange limitations on the ability to implement playable races sized Tiny or Large, which should be a thing for certain races.
5. On the topic of size, why is there no small option for the Dwarf? Kinda miss that to be a thing. While on the larger side of all small creatures and the smaller side of all medium creatures, I think the dwarf deserves the ability to be small. And to add onto that, I believe there is no harm in fixing some races like the Fairy to allow them to be Small or Tiny as player choice and races like the Minotaur or Centaur to be medium or Large like their monster stat block counterparts. I believe the planed rework of the DMG and PHB will provide a great opportunity to add a few basic rules for player characters, outside the small and medium range. For example, exclaiming that a weapon's damage dice doesn't increase with the size of the weapon for players like it does with monster stat blocks would be a good balance change. Or stating that a creature cant make use of its flying speed if it is carrying something above its base carry capacity (not push drag lift range) or something twice its size, would greatly help balance flying creatures as well as Tiny creatures with flight abilities like the Fairy. Maybe a general rule on movement speed, seeing as you streamline movement speeds across the board, stating that All playable races of size small to medium have 30 ft. all Large ones have 40 and all tiny ones have 20 or so would be neat and rich in fantasy. Especially if you separate flying speed from movement speed again. I had some great, hilarious moments when a Tiny fairy player got stuck in a fly trap and his wings were stuck together by the glue, so he had to walk for a bit. Having a slow walking speed and tiny size meant that the house he was infiltrating turned into a giant mountain of parkour challenges he didn't expect, but caused great fun for the table. As well as having the large Minotaur character have trouble fitting into buildings often having to sleep in stables, or accidentally breaking stuff or not fitting into a smaller corridor are decent drawbacks for the extra size to use in combat and can be really fun. Such rules will also open up a greater variety of new Playable races to add in the future.
6. I kind of get the Ardlings intend to be the counterpart of the Tiefling outside the Aasimar, especially since Aasimar is meant to represent the Angelic celestials while the Ardling is supposed to represent the Guardinal celestials. But to be fair, I would have preferred a proper Beastman race over a new celestial one, where the Aasimar already neatly filled the spot.
For example, a race that would cater to all who wish to play a beast like humanoid, would need to open the ability to choose between looking either mostly human with just animal ears and maybe a tail or so as well as more animalistic which can resemble the Tabaxi like style and so on. (not gonna state the F word) but I guess anyone who DMed online will know what many people want to play as. By simply allowing such a visual option and giving them traits like keen senses (smell, hearing or sight etc) and maybe the ability to talk to animals or a swim speed if amphibian or fly speed if avian etc so would make for a great and versatile race that caters to a lot of people, from those who like their anime to those who like F... characters I guess. Stuff like Tabaxi, Owlin, Leonin, Lizardfolk and so on would fall under this category, and them being humanoid and able to create offsprings with other humanoid races would easily explain the in between style of looks with just a few bestial features and mostly human or so looks.
7. Lastly, as for the background, I love the new streamlined style. Adding proficiency and ability scores there is a great customization and gameplay wise decision. But I am missing out on a few things that help especially new players come up with their own background story. For example, referencing to and old but compact single tables for flaws, ideals and goals their character could have while stating that they encourage coming up with your own when making your character's story and so on. Since no character is or should be perfect and every character needs a goal etc. in their backstory, these small guidelines add a lot of creativity to their character and story. It would also help if in the new DMG and PHB would state that it is advised to create or at least finalize the character together with the DM, so they can provide feedback and information about the world and or setting the Module or Homebrew World is playing in. From my experience, nothing feels worse than bringing a fully premade character to a session where nothing of it fits into the world the story plays in. Like a spelljammer character thrown into a Storm Kings Thunder setting or a character who was intended to slowly uncover the lost mystery of enchanting items in a low magic world and so on thrown into an eberron campaign where everyone knows how to do it already and magic items are overly common, totally throwing that players into discomfort for the story they had in mind for their character. So ye do make sure to include some wording to at least hint on the fact the DM isn't your enemy when creating a char, but your biggest ally in making sure it has its place in the world and has a good chance to get its own "character arc" so to say. Heck, as DM, I even added an entire new continent and hometown for a Samurai player into my world.
So that so far was my feedback and ideas, make sure to add your own feedback and thoughts as comments i would love to read them and hopefully the Devs see them and think a few things over.
Man most everything revolving around the d20 test I agree with. Ardling I still like that they are guardinal like but felt they should drop the wings and give some more beastial options with them. The motivations being gone from character development could /should be reintroduced somehow.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
When a character wants to roll for some impossible physical action, just ask the player. "What is your current hit points." That MAY have him/her back down from wanting to make the roll.
-----
Ardlings not a fan of the race and especially not for a core race.
-----
Luck. "Why can I give someone disadvantage to hit me but not to have disadvantage against a spell I cast?"
-----
Work on wording on D20 test. FROM UA (BOLD BY ME)
The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls.
it affects all three of those rolls. Does this mean a +1 dagger adds to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. May need to work on wording.
-----
"On the topic of size, why is there no small option for the Dwarf? "
There are no Small sized dwarves, elves or orcs. In the case of orcs, it's probably because it does odd things to their powerful build trait. Like...What's the point of carrying stuff as if you're one size larger when you small? It's like having a halflings be medium size. It's just silly.
In the case of elves and dwarves... Its probably to avoid the overlap with gnomes. Small, fae-like being and small crafter.
At least, that's my guesses.
I am still heavily against the auto fail on a nat 1. I am a bit more okay on the auto success on a nat 20, but honestly if rather not have it. For the context of the asking a king for his crown, I do agree that rolling high enough may let someone pass it off as a joke and not get themselves thrown in prison. To be honest, I don't have too much of an opinion on a nat 20 auto success.
My main issue is the nat 1 auto fail for how it is essentially a 5% chance of negating any investment a player puts into their character. If someone actually put in the investment to bump up a skill or saving throw so that they can succeed on a nat 1, I feel that they should be allowed to do so.
Pack Tactics made a video game over this (and other rules) and I think it is a good watch. Honestly can probably explain the Nat 1/20 issue better than I can, though he is a bit more harsh on the nat 20 auto success.
1) Player characters should never ask to make a roll. They just state what they want to do. The DM decides if a roll is needed. This is even more critical of a rule now that Skill Checks can provide you with Inspiration on a nat 20.
2) Magic weapons (like dagger, +1) already state "You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon"... This already is clear that it does not apply to all d20 Tests.
SO.. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. (Like I +1 dagger affecting the To Hit d20 test) Unless we say it doesn't or a specific feat/skill/ability/item that affects one of the stated D20 tests and will therefore NOT affect all three of those rolls. I hope that clears up that sentence.
The +1 dagger makes no mention of affecting d20 Tests. It specifically states it affects only 1 subset of d20 Tests, that being the attack roll.
The general rule does not say "if something in the game affects any of the d20 Tests, it affects them all". But the mere fact that you and I are interpreting this sentence differently is enough for me to support changing the wording to make it more clear.
The wording is fine. If something affects "a d20 test" (i.e. the OPT Lucky feat specifically naming 'd20 Test'), it affects all three types of rolls. If it affects one of the subtypes (i.e. a +1 dagger), it affects the stated subtype. The rule does not work backwards and reading it that way is weird and unnatural.
Please do not contact or message me.
1. I agree with the Challenge language instead of Test.
2. Regardless of how they work this, there will be some confusion for new DMs. Perhaps something in the DMG to cover this.
3. Currently, Inspiration is a underused feature. My players can't even find it on their character sheets. I like the Human racial feature more than the nat 20 feature, but I am okay with it, as it will put more inspiration in the game.
4. I have no opinion on this.
5. There is too much emphasis on little people. Too many races have small options. WHY? To fit cute anime memes? Gensai, Humans, Custom Lineage, Ardlings, Tieflings, Tortles?, Changlings, who else? It's not that I am against this, per se, it's just I'm for traditional races. Dwarves are medium, have been medium since at least 3rd edition. Not because they are TALLER, but because they are STOCKIER. (or WIDER, if you prefer)
6. Ardlings should NOT be a core race. If you want to have them, great, but Bojack Celestial Horseman shouldn't be the standard in the game. Tabaxi, Kenku, Shifters, and Aarakocras are all optional races. Ardlings shouldn't get preferential treatment because they happen to be the new latest thing. Also I agree that if you want a beastial race to encompass all manner of animal people, it shouldn't also be a celestial. I think giving a beast-person race animal abilities like keen senses or something like that would be cool. But we already have a race like that, it's called Shifters. Just include more options for Shifters and make them core. Like we did with dragonborn.
7. I also like the background changes and agree with the notion that you should run a session zero to build the party. That is the weakness of the current Adventurer's League (besides the treasure point system, restriction on character options, etc) is that everyone makes their characters separately and then you randomly build a party with whomever shows up.
I've two more bones to pick.
Why two races with extra movement on a bonus action? Now aardlings and orcs can just move three times? Limited use, sure, but not too limited the higher level you go. This was largely limited to misty step or other teleport effects, not straight up extra movement, which is different , or to the rogue's cunning action ability. And high elves still get misty step. With this being normal movement and with the grapple rules changing to allow a grapple on a hit with an unarmed strike, this enables some funky chain movement shenanigans even with the half speed for the grappler. And the aardlings flying - I have an issue with it being flying rather than jumping. I feel if you are a race that always has a flying speed it's no problem, but for a race with a very temporary flying speed, questions about height and moving in 3 dimensions will come up more. Like how much movement is required to fly over creatures and questions about momentum - you fly 30 ft in a straight line and drop straight down? Can you move a grappled target that is too heavy to carry while flying (or can you "fly/walk"?) I think making it a jump would remove a lot of questions around it.
How do you handle a low magic campaign with this UA? Magic seems more accessible and common with the 1st level feat magic initiate (and several races getting spells, including the new aardlings.) 5e had a lot of magic in it anyway, but without an automatic free feat at level 1, this seemed much less of an issue to me. Some of the racial magic abilities read to me like spell-like abilities that could make sense even in a low-magic world. Even in Strixhaven it seemed less of an issue because it was a magic school setting and easy enough to restrict those backgrounds to it. I never liked the idea of banning anything - like if someone really wanted to be a magic user in a low-magic campaign, I would allow it with a discussion of what to expect. But I don't see a way around banning the magic initiate feat for a low magic setting - it's by definition not a low magic setting if every baker and butcher and candlestick maker can be a magic initiate. I guess this isn't a huge deal - can ban this feat, can ban classes, whatever - but even in a normal campaign this feels like magic just got way more common and less special. Like you're not "buying" the access to magic in any way, you just learned it in your basket weaving class because why not. I thought of the magic initiate feat like representing those rare sparks of talent or befitting a magic using class that might have trained up to earn those additional spells.
What I think is important is why the changes have been made and how those changes interact with other changes in later 1D&D playtest material. So why do monsters not get to crit? Why the change to auto fail? Did the designers look at the math behind the use a tool and skill to get advantage and know how it changes the nat 1 vs nat 20 %'s? etc.
I am glad that people have games they like and maybe dislike but in general the people I have played 5e with did not like the changes or disliked them enough to not playtest them at all (note there is also the issue of there is not really enough to playtest to see all of the interactions the PT doc is very basic in nature and IMHO most people should be able to form an informed opinion with out having to roll dice and slice mice (but again there are lots of different types of people so maybe some need to playtest the 1D&D doc))
Having said that it is possible that class and monster changes would "fix" the changes some how but without seeing how they interact it is tough to say but I am keeping an open mind.
Okay first off, are you suggesting that you do not like surprise math tests on Monday {he says with an incredulous smile} When do you think Surprise math tests should be given, TUESDAYS, be realistic.
As to tiny not being slowed dragging a tiny creature, that is absolutely realistic. This is because while surface area increases exponentially squared, volume and thus mass increases exponentially at cubic levels. This is why a beetle the size of a bread crumb can lift six times its own weight but is also why if you put the weight of a full-grown elephant on the elephants back, the elephant would be crushed to death, so according to the laws of physics that is realistic, I think.