There is a full hour of commentary from Crawford in there where he explains the new systems in detail, including the rationale behind every decision that was made. A lot of what is said clarifies many of the mistaken points that are being hotly debated in numerous places.
Some of the nuances are subtle, and easy to miss if one only goes off the written UA document, but they are important to really appreciate how the game is being reconstructed.
Transcript, no. YT has auto-generated captions on some videos, but not a transcript.
Also, yes. Watch the goddamn video. We all know if you haven't, and your opinion holds a lot less weight if you start complaining about things that were already answered in the very information-dense video accompaniment to this drop.
If a transcript does show up anywhere (because videos are not accessible for me, and because text is easier for many folks for quick reference), please do post a link!
Yeah, I can read a lot faster than Crawford can talk. It's also much easier to interrogate, critique, logic check the claims of the rationale when its in plain text as opposed to going back again and again over the time slider. No one else playtests their rules with the guiding principles only available on video.... This is just Oracular Crawford pretension. Very Great and Powerful Ozzish.
you know, if you select the little gear icon in the video, you can adjust the playback speed. it might take a bit to get used to, and you might have to build up to it, i.e. 1.5x before 2.0x, but at 2.0x speed, it goes rather quickly and if you are used to it, still understandable....
you know, if you select the little gear icon in the video, you can adjust the playback speed. it might take a bit to get used to, and you might have to build up to it, i.e. 1.5x before 2.0x, but at 2.0x speed, it goes rather quickly and if you are used to it, still understandable....
Meh, still harder to annotate.
We play by Rules as WRITTEN, not Rules as Crawford Wags his Jaw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I feel like a playtest that comes with an explanation of why rules that won't be in the final book is a flawed playtest. In 2024 it'll need to stand on its own without Crawford coming to your house and telling you why he did things on every page. If it fails because it feels bad without context then it feels bad and the context doesn't matter.
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons. https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
I only disagree with one of your opinions... but I'm also okay with it being your thing... alot of house rules that twenties are automatically a success anyways... but really again if they just put in the book that it was a possible advisement (to let amazing thing happens when you roll a 20) or something like that versus make it a solid win roll... I'd be okay with that too.
The rest of your points I don't really disagree with.
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
I agree with most of your points and will only add my 2 cents to a them.
1. Removing monster crits is just bad, I agree. If the world is too far one sided in the players favor (something 5e already struggles with by the way) you do loose that sense of danger but more importantly you loose a sense of a world. When everything the player IS (not even just does) is "special" then you begin to get that "The One" troupe going. The troupe is fine if that is the story to the campaign but the very rules on their own shouldn't reinforce the troupe so heavily.
2. I actually like the idea of inspiration being utilized more of an actual mechanic. However I heavily disagree with it being on 20s. I would prefer they happen on Nat 1s. Overcoming adversity by learning from your mistakes is simply more compelling in my personal opinion.
3. Nat 20s meaning instant success is an extremely dangerous thing to give to players for the very reason you mentioned. I 100% agree that is NOT something I would include in skill checks. I understand the point in making this change, though I don't think the power hand off here is worth being able to call all d20 roles a "D20 Test". This is a gross over simplification of a rule that truly NEEDS context minutia. Players WILL argue that their nat 20 allows them to convince the King to give away his crown as long as the rule states they can.
4. It does feel that way and 5e was already a game that was difficult to give players that feeling of danger.
5. The Class based spell change I don't mind so much. The whole min maxing thing is problem already inherent within the different classes and speaks more to the balancing of the spells and them needing some change. Though I do think that that it disincentivizes an attraction of certain classes, as their spell lists are partly what set them apart. From a world building perspective I like that change as it sets magic up more of a world wide law of nature as opposed to special things that special people can do only.
On a positive note however I had a number of players run through a one shot using the new background rules and it was an instant success. Everyone was more in tune with who their characters were immediately. At least that was my anecdotal experience.
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
I do not agree that adding more monsters is a bad thing, even at the expense of the power of old monsters. More is more here and if you are correct, we will be getting more and a DM needs both trivial encounters and difficult ones.
I do not really disagree with this one and likely will not use it at my table. I award inspiration when I get brilliant, committed RP. I would rather encourage that more than giving inspiration because a random roll.
If it is impossible, you should not be calling for a check in the first place. A check should only be made when there is a chance of success.
Can you elaborate?
I do not believe we have enough information on this one to make such sensational claims yet. We have only a small slice of the entire cake at the moment.
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
The rules clearly say that if the DM thinks the DC of a check is more than 30, you don't even get to roll it.
Player: "I want to suplex the moon." DM: "You can't reach it, sorry."
Player: "can I roll persuasion to convince the Queen to give me all her money?" DM: "Tell me what you want to say to the Queen, and I'll decide whether or not to roll any skills" Player: "I tell her it would be really awesome if she gave me all the money and this would make her a very popular queen." DM (pointedly not reaching for dice): "She laughs at you, and says 'I'm sorry, but we must guard our coffers lest the realm fall to privation. However, we may spare a reward for a brave soul who completes an important quest...'"
Player: "I try to seduce the dragon." DM: "The dragon smiles excitedly at your advances and says 'Oh, don't you look delicious...' What is your Armor Class?"
Sadly Storm, the problem is that DMs are insufficiently educated and often think they have to allow a player to roll for whatever nonsensical braindead lunacy comes out of their mouth. The current DMG does not prepare a GM to simply narrate failure without rolling a die, and players have gotten spoiled on the notion that they're allowed to try literally anything with a five percent chance of success. I cannot abide it myself and I will not be using the automatic success/failure rules in my games, though in the case of checks at least there's no real difference. A DM shouldn't be calling for a check at all if a 1 would succeed or a 20 would fail.
That said, I do get tired of the idea that natural 1s/20s should be these sacred events that get the entire table hooting like a frathouse at the winning Superbowl touchdown or groaning like zombies kicked out of the brain buffet. By all means a "YEAH!" or a "F@#$!" when you see the number, but neither number warrants stopping the game dead for two minutes while the players do whichever table dance is warranted for the number. Settle down, y'all. We've got a game to play.
EDIT: as for all the "crits reduce monster lethality too much!" junk? Naw. Crits are the coward's way to kill a PC. If I'm DMing and I kill your character. You will be armed, you will be facing me, and you will know I'm going to do it before it happens. You will see the end coming, and if you play will you may be able to prevent it - but that will not stop me from ensuring you aren't slacking. I dislike killing players with critical hits they can't see coming, can't stop, and cannot possibly play around. I have no such compunctions against killing them with repeated normal hits, or with slow-acting poisons/diseases, or with Exhaustion, or with environmental effects they knew better than to muck with. When a PC dies at my table, I want the player to know it was their fault as much as mine.
I just want to reiterate what some other's have already pointed out, because it cannot be overemphasized...
Make sure you watch the video that accompanies the UA before using it!
There is a full hour of commentary from Crawford in there where he explains the new systems in detail, including the rationale behind every decision that was made. A lot of what is said clarifies many of the mistaken points that are being hotly debated in numerous places.
Some of the nuances are subtle, and easy to miss if one only goes off the written UA document, but they are important to really appreciate how the game is being reconstructed.
It's a good video - not fluff. They get into the reasons behind the changes and some of the implications.
Agreed!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Do they have a transcript for the video?
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Transcript, no. YT has auto-generated captions on some videos, but not a transcript.
Also, yes. Watch the goddamn video. We all know if you haven't, and your opinion holds a lot less weight if you start complaining about things that were already answered in the very information-dense video accompaniment to this drop.
Please do not contact or message me.
Knowing what they say and agreeing with it are two different things. ;)
Certainly. But arming yourself with the appropriate information to debate properly is still important.
Please do not contact or message me.
If a transcript does show up anywhere (because videos are not accessible for me, and because text is easier for many folks for quick reference), please do post a link!
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Yeah, I can read a lot faster than Crawford can talk. It's also much easier to interrogate, critique, logic check the claims of the rationale when its in plain text as opposed to going back again and again over the time slider. No one else playtests their rules with the guiding principles only available on video.... This is just Oracular Crawford pretension. Very Great and Powerful Ozzish.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
you know, if you select the little gear icon in the video, you can adjust the playback speed. it might take a bit to get used to, and you might have to build up to it, i.e. 1.5x before 2.0x, but at 2.0x speed, it goes rather quickly and if you are used to it, still understandable....
Yeah I watched it
it didn’t excite me, to me it looks like it will be video game skill trees and inspiration hound-a-thons
add to that the unreal engine VTT and look, just call it D&D MMO and be done with it already
Meh, still harder to annotate.
We play by Rules as WRITTEN, not Rules as Crawford Wags his Jaw.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I feel like a playtest that comes with an explanation of why rules that won't be in the final book is a flawed playtest. In 2024 it'll need to stand on its own without Crawford coming to your house and telling you why he did things on every page. If it fails because it feels bad without context then it feels bad and the context doesn't matter.
That would be 4e and pathfinder outperformed d&d 4e when the market spoke up. 5e was considered a risk after 4e.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
Come watch us save the multiverse in "The Lost Dragons of Phandelver" - a homebrew based on Lost Mines of Phandelver, Dragon of Icespire Peak, and They Tyranny of Dragons.
https://www.twitch.tv/kdinla
The Gatewalker Saga - Dragons Beware
I only disagree with one of your opinions... but I'm also okay with it being your thing... alot of house rules that twenties are automatically a success anyways... but really again if they just put in the book that it was a possible advisement (to let amazing thing happens when you roll a 20) or something like that versus make it a solid win roll... I'd be okay with that too.
The rest of your points I don't really disagree with.
I agree with most of your points and will only add my 2 cents to a them.
1. Removing monster crits is just bad, I agree. If the world is too far one sided in the players favor (something 5e already struggles with by the way) you do loose that sense of danger but more importantly you loose a sense of a world. When everything the player IS (not even just does) is "special" then you begin to get that "The One" troupe going. The troupe is fine if that is the story to the campaign but the very rules on their own shouldn't reinforce the troupe so heavily.
2. I actually like the idea of inspiration being utilized more of an actual mechanic. However I heavily disagree with it being on 20s. I would prefer they happen on Nat 1s. Overcoming adversity by learning from your mistakes is simply more compelling in my personal opinion.
3. Nat 20s meaning instant success is an extremely dangerous thing to give to players for the very reason you mentioned. I 100% agree that is NOT something I would include in skill checks. I understand the point in making this change, though I don't think the power hand off here is worth being able to call all d20 roles a "D20 Test". This is a gross over simplification of a rule that truly NEEDS context minutia. Players WILL argue that their nat 20 allows them to convince the King to give away his crown as long as the rule states they can.
4. It does feel that way and 5e was already a game that was difficult to give players that feeling of danger.
5. The Class based spell change I don't mind so much. The whole min maxing thing is problem already inherent within the different classes and speaks more to the balancing of the spells and them needing some change. Though I do think that that it disincentivizes an attraction of certain classes, as their spell lists are partly what set them apart. From a world building perspective I like that change as it sets magic up more of a world wide law of nature as opposed to special things that special people can do only.
On a positive note however I had a number of players run through a one shot using the new background rules and it was an instant success. Everyone was more in tune with who their characters were immediately. At least that was my anecdotal experience.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The rules clearly say that if the DM thinks the DC of a check is more than 30, you don't even get to roll it.
Player: "I want to suplex the moon."
DM: "You can't reach it, sorry."
Player: "can I roll persuasion to convince the Queen to give me all her money?"
DM: "Tell me what you want to say to the Queen, and I'll decide whether or not to roll any skills"
Player: "I tell her it would be really awesome if she gave me all the money and this would make her a very popular queen."
DM (pointedly not reaching for dice): "She laughs at you, and says 'I'm sorry, but we must guard our coffers lest the realm fall to privation. However, we may spare a reward for a brave soul who completes an important quest...'"
Player: "I try to seduce the dragon."
DM: "The dragon smiles excitedly at your advances and says 'Oh, don't you look delicious...' What is your Armor Class?"
What is the problem, exactly?
Sadly Storm, the problem is that DMs are insufficiently educated and often think they have to allow a player to roll for whatever nonsensical braindead lunacy comes out of their mouth. The current DMG does not prepare a GM to simply narrate failure without rolling a die, and players have gotten spoiled on the notion that they're allowed to try literally anything with a five percent chance of success. I cannot abide it myself and I will not be using the automatic success/failure rules in my games, though in the case of checks at least there's no real difference. A DM shouldn't be calling for a check at all if a 1 would succeed or a 20 would fail.
That said, I do get tired of the idea that natural 1s/20s should be these sacred events that get the entire table hooting like a frathouse at the winning Superbowl touchdown or groaning like zombies kicked out of the brain buffet. By all means a "YEAH!" or a "F@#$!" when you see the number, but neither number warrants stopping the game dead for two minutes while the players do whichever table dance is warranted for the number. Settle down, y'all. We've got a game to play.
EDIT: as for all the "crits reduce monster lethality too much!" junk? Naw. Crits are the coward's way to kill a PC. If I'm DMing and I kill your character. You will be armed, you will be facing me, and you will know I'm going to do it before it happens. You will see the end coming, and if you play will you may be able to prevent it - but that will not stop me from ensuring you aren't slacking. I dislike killing players with critical hits they can't see coming, can't stop, and cannot possibly play around. I have no such compunctions against killing them with repeated normal hits, or with slow-acting poisons/diseases, or with Exhaustion, or with environmental effects they knew better than to muck with. When a PC dies at my table, I want the player to know it was their fault as much as mine.
Please do not contact or message me.