I like how the new system is set up. However upon first impression the lack of critical hits from various sources other than that weapon and unarmed attacks. I'll be putting this in the survey when they release but I'd love to let others add their thoughts on this point.
Yeah, this one is a non-starter. This isn't the way to rebalance monk, which is the only class that actually benefits here. Also if you, the player, get to crit, my mobs get to crit, it's only fair.
Going to break this post up into several parts, addressing the feedback above as well as other thoughts I've had reading through the UA.
----- Crits: My feeling on crits is ambivalent. On monster crits, at low levels, crits are too swingy, and as a DM I frequently have to fudge a crit into a non-crit so I don't one-shot a player, and then at high levels, the damage from modifiers and the sheer volume of attacks makes the doubling of dice for any one attack really quite negligible. If I was really trying to kill my players, I'd be sad, but I'm not, and honestly, I think there's better ways to add tension to combat than randomly 1-shotting somebody with a crit.
On crit damage from non-weapon sources, we'll see how this plays out. I suspect we'll see Rogue sneak attack rules specifying that this damage counts as weapon damage, and possibly the same for Paladin smites, but who knows. It's definitely a nerf to casters, but casters are probably going to be fine. I also suspect this is one of the few things that's likely to change because historically WotC always caves to the desires of casters, and martials always get sent to the back of the line.
----- Languages: I honestly think the language rules feel silly and tacked on at this point, like is there any reason we still put languages on our character sheet other than that we always have? This almost never comes up in gameplay in any interesting way. In any official adventure, certainly, and at most tables, any NPC the players are expected to interact with, "roleplay" with, or respect in any way, is going to speak Common (or have some other method of bridging the communication gap from its end, like telepathy), because gating actual adventure content like plot development or quests behind the random chance that at least one of the players chose the right alternative language to unlock it sucks. So therefore, any creature that doesn't speak Common is automatically an Other that doesn't need any consideration if the players don't want to offer any. It kind of signals "This is a <monster>, if you happened to choose <monster language> when you made your character, you can maybe interact with it and at best enjoy a scene of optional roleplaying with it, or you can just kill it at your leisure and that's fine too." Your choice of extra languages at character creation just determines which random groups of Others you may choose to interact with in this way if you're so inclined, but it doesn't matter at all because all the "real" people you're ever going to meet will speak Common anyway. Why can't we just recognize that this sort of gameplay just isn't that interesting, and jettison it?
---- Races: I mostly love all the race updates. The new rules for mixed-heritage are sensible and welcome. The previous limitation of this origin to Half-Elves and Half-Orcs has always been...limiting, so I'm 100% in favor of this update. Most of the updates to the races are fine.
Based on current versions of the spells, the Elf bonus spells seem very strong for all subraces, and I'd be excited to play any type of elf.
Tiefling spells seem ok, not amazing, and Abyssal is clearly lagging the other choices.
Ardling spells are also in the ok range, with Idyllic clearly better than the other choices. The Ardling race in general seems kind of interesting, not really getting me excited right now, but maybe it'll grow on me. I'm not sure why we're getting this and not just the Aasimar for a celestial orgin race, or Tabaxi for a furry race.
Glad to see the Variant Human be the new Default Human, like it always should have been. I'm excited as ever to play a Human, although I wonder how big a bonus a 2nd 1st level feat will be when everyone already has one, versus getting a first one was when nobody did.
For Dragonborn, I'd have preferred to see the Fizban's Treasury breath-weapon rules. On average, the damage for the new attack scales slightly better and more consistently, but having it take a whole Action versus just replacing an Attack is a big nerf overall. I'm also really confused why this race needed to be changed again after it just got updated in a book last year.
Dwarf changes are mostly great, although I'd argue that the Forge Wise ability should just give us the choice of ANY Artisan's Tools, not just the short list provided. For the life of me I can't figure out why Brewer's tools were removed from the list, but the more I thought about it, the more I think that the race specifically made by the god of creation should just delight in making all things and working with all manner of tools. Let the players choose the flavors of handiwork our dwarves can specialize in.
The Gnome, Halfling and Orc are all great and I love them, and I'm especially looking forward to playing an Orc.
---- Backgrounds: The background rules are great, although as I said earlier I think the implementation of Languages is clunky, and maybe the game would be better off if we just not worry about languages. Everyone getting Feats makes the Human feel slightly less special, but it's probably a good change overall.
---- Feats: Leveled Feats also seem like a good idea, although I'm really interested to see what higher level feats are going to look like, and will some of our powerful favorites from 5e be moving up the list? Alert, Lucky and Magic Initiate seem really strong and are exciting choices. Tough hasn't changed and will still be good. Healer and Musician look interesting and worth exploring. Skilled and Tavern Brawler might be ok, but I'm skeptical. Crafter and Savage Attacker seem like outright traps and clearly need some help.
---- Overall: I'm impressed with the changes. I feel very good about most of them, and overall I already prefer most of these options and definitely this overall approach to character origins to what we had in 5e.
Trying to pretend it's not a new edition and calling it 1D&D is going to work out as well as when they tried calling 5e 'D&D Next', people are going to call it a new edition regardless.
I understand why they are removing half-races for players, but does this mean things like Orogs, Ogrillons, Half-dragons don't exist as separate things either? It's not exactly backwards compatible but not unmanageable.
Humans and Tieflings can be Small now, but not Dwarves? Might as well let there be short Elves too. Standardizing speed to 30 is a good change.
Dragonborn darkvision is good. I agree the dragonborn breath weapon should be part of the attack action, they do want people to use it, right? Wouldn't that make them the dragonborniest dragonborn? (sorry, but they started it)
Ardling looks interesting, I'd rather have Aasimar as a PHB race than a totally new one, although any core race with a flight ability is going to be interesting and maybe need some playtesting.
And why make the gnomish clockwork stuff deteriorate after 8 hours, my music box just falls apart in the pack while we travel? At least let them wind it up each day and make it last 24 hours like it did before. If they are worried about selling it put some limit on that. I'm not sure how this makes the gnomiest gnome (sorry again) when their inventions just fall apart so easily.
I do use languages, and adding sign language is a good inclusion that even has some useful advantages, but they should just make one list and drop the Standard/Rare stuff, it leads to confusing wording in the Background section and getting rid of confusing wording should be more important in a new edition than changing how we roll dice. I would also like to see a Cthonic umbrella language for Abyssal/Infernal like Primordial.
Replacing the background features with feats is great, backgrounds were seldom used and very situational, but some of the 1st level feats are much stronger than others. Would like to see a few more like a fixed Grappler and 2WF (maybe those will be class options), and Lucky or Savage Attacker seem much better than Tavern Brawler letting you shove a giant and attack with a barstool, or getting a few extra skill profs that seem to be less important in these revised rules.
Codifying Tools & Proficiency to give advantage synergy is a good move, although it probably makes some tools much better than others since you'll see a lot more rolls with Thieves' Tools than Cobbler's Tools. But that was still the case before so it's fine.
Spell List stuff looks neat, presumably more will come with class descriptions but it has promise.
Grappled condition changes seem all right, having it affect attack rolls is good for threat control, being able to attack and attempt to escape in the same turn is also welcome, but maybe add the ability to use action to do a skill check instead of the saving throw. That seems like another weakening of skill proficiency although maybe there's good reason for that.
Incapacitated taking away speech, I sometimes used this for really drunk or enthralled/astounded so I am not thrilled with that, would prefer to see something that incapacitates mention it also silences as part of the spell or feature, but I can live with it. The other changes to it are fine.
Inspiration, it's always bothered me that they didn't come up with a better term to separate this from Bardic Insipiration, but we're definitely stuck with it now. Getting it on a 20 and other sources, and losing it on long rest should make it more of a thing I suppose, it got overlooked most of the time in my experience. Maybe it should also have more options like actually allowing a reroll or being used against an attacker, since that is another way it gets used when it sees actual play.
Unarmed Strikes, will need to test some of the changes, especially the grapple stuff. Previously it didn't see much use outside of monks or maybe some creatures that have a decent damaging strike, but the changes could make it more interesting.
Two things that I didn't see that I wanted them to actually fix:
Death Saves and Instant Death rule - It seems like removing monster crits was intended to reduce low level player death, but maybe getting rid of the rule that negative damage beyond max HP is the real problem there, since I've only ever seen that kill very low level characters. The other unaddressed problem is the death yo-yo where it's better to let someone go to 0hp and use healing to revive them than to keep them from going to 0hp. I don't know the best solution, or the best way to discourage that, but I would have appreciated something to test there. And maybe Death Saves should go back to CON saves so modifier and proficiency make a difference, especially if there's something like exhaustion for failing a death save while unconscious. Again I would have much rather seen them try to fix this with rules changes than mess with crits or d20 checks.
Long Rest STILL has this very confusing wording around whether spellcasting interrupts it. If it's 1 hour of spellcasting, nobody does that outside of ceremony, find familiar, and a few very situational spells ... but if spellcasting doesn't interrupt the rest, can you just use some spell slots for long lasting buffs a few minutes before the rest ends and get the slots back immediately? I don't think they have ever sufficiently answered this and here was another chance to clear things up and it's still just up to the DM to make a judgement call.
At least they did add the part where Long Rest interrupted after at least an hour counts as Short Rest, I always played it that way but it's good to make it official.
The mention of gaining an additional language, in between Character Origin Overview and Character Races, is very easy to miss if you're scrolling quickly through the document. I would suggest condensing this into either Race or Background, rather than being some anomalous third column. (Fourth column if you include Class.)
I still feel like ability bonuses should be race-based instead of background-based (or at least both). It just adds much more to the flavor of the particular race and helps paint a picture of their strengths and weaknesses and their commonplace role within a campaign setting. You can always change it, but I'm very disappointed WoTC is trying to be so inclusive to the point that character races are now generic and bland. Provide some more typical background information on the races with their inherent strengths/weaknesses so players actually feel like there's a rich differentiation of culture and inherent skills. The "...of many worlds" content is a good start, but it's insufficient.
I really feel like this "be whatever you want" direction is hollowing out some of the intricacies and depth of the setting and play experience. The sourcebooks have always been a guide for DMs/Players, not an autocratic hard rule. I don't think there's a need to explicitly remove all of the flavor and variation of the races for the implicit house rules that have always been a part of D&D. Give us big, dumb strong orcs and wily, wise gnomes as typecasts/stereotypes and let DMs/Players decide if they want to break convention. There's absolutely nothing wrong in allowing a dexterous, intelligent orc as a PC, but making all races just have different abilities/feats doesn't seem the same or give players the edginess of going against the grain (because there is no grain any longer).
Similarly, I'm anxious to see what they do with Alignment. Players want to be heroes (or anti-heroes) fighting against evil orcs and goblins for the most part. The new multiverse monster approach seems lackluster and unnecessary. I'd like to maybe see it play a bigger role in character creation and development - maybe feats based on particular alignments for instance.
Regardless, I hope that OneD&D brings us all a new direction that is flexible, loyal, classic, modern, sustainable and fun all in one. If it's done right, it can last for generations. Fingers crossed...
This playtest is a lie. They directly calls out the significance, success and commitment to staying with the current edition and not starting a new edition, than immediately turn around and test a new edition which is absolutely not cross compatible with the existing gameplay. Without going over it point by point, I'd discard most of it. Even the compatible stuff like Ardlings seems tacky, they should just expand Aasimar to have different heritages which feature some of these traits. Ardling sounds like a cheap counter creation rather than a unique race, it at least needs a better name.
I like to see feats being integrated into the core rules. I love giving people feats at 1st level, and I think backgrounds are a great way to do it (since core D&D fails to separate heritage and culture). This comes with a glaring caveat I will get to in the negative impressions. I also like the rules for mixed races. It allows for more flexibility, which I am a fan of.
The crit rules as a base rule of thumb I think works, particularly at lower levels. Sure, it's exciting as player or DM to roll a 20, but the critical damage can throw TOO much RNG into a fight which already has plenty.
Negative Impressions:
The improvement to backgrounds brings into focus a glaring problem--Races almost don't matter. While I don't care whether ability score increases are part of race or background, what does bother me is that the bonuses races grant seem pathetically weak for the most part. Dragonborn in particular, while it's good to see them finally get darkvision, their breath weapon should probably be changed to "As part of an attack action, you may replace one of your attacks with a breath attack..." or at least get the ability to add your constitution modifier to the damage as well. It's kind of lame to get an ability that only makes your attacks weaker. Sure, it is an okay option for some spellcasters, but it seems remarkably underwhelming for a character that can deal more damage multiple times. The small 15 ft cone rarely will be able to hit more than 1 creature to even make it a consideration. Another option might be to extend the range to a 20 ft cone. I'm not going to go into every race, but the dragonborn caught my eye after seeing how they already tried to revise in Fizban's to see it take a step backwards. In essence, all races need some sort of buff to give them as much meaning as the background.
One improvement I fail to see, is adding more flexibility. Where I commented that the half-breeds gained some, everything else does not. Sure, creating your own background is the default, which is great. But races and background should offer some greater choice in terms of skills, ability scores, and even mechanical bonuses. Maybe there should be a choice of two background feats and two racial feats as well, or choose two of three potential skills.
Ardlings? Why have Tielfing but not Aasimar? Ardlings do seem weak and rather pointless (unless you are trying hard to integrate some MTG races). Their abilities seem even weaker than that of Tieflings which are already pretty meh.
All other feedback I had will have to wait to see how they handle other mechanics and classes.
I still feel like ability bonuses should be race-based instead of background-based (or at least both). It just adds much more to the flavor of the particular race and helps paint a picture of their strengths and weaknesses and their commonplace role within a campaign setting. You can always change it, but I'm very disappointed WoTC is trying to be so inclusive to the point that character races are now generic and bland. Provide some more typical background information on the races with their inherent strengths/weaknesses so players actually feel like there's a rich differentiation of culture and inherent skills. The "...of many worlds" content is a good start, but it's insufficient.
I really feel like this "be whatever you want" direction is hollowing out some of the intricacies and depth of the setting and play experience. The sourcebooks have always been a guide for DMs/Players, not an autocratic hard rule. I don't think there's a need to explicitly remove all of the flavor and variation of the races for the implicit house rules that have always been a part of D&D. Give us big, dumb strong orcs and wily, wise gnomes as typecasts/stereotypes and let DMs/Players decide if they want to break convention. There's absolutely nothing wrong in allowing a dexterous, intelligent orc as a PC, but making all races just have different abilities/feats doesn't seem the same or give players the edginess of going against the grain (because there is no grain any longer).
Similarly, I'm anxious to see what they do with Alignment. Players want to be heroes (or anti-heroes) fighting against evil orcs and goblins for the most part. The new multiverse monster approach seems lackluster and unnecessary. I'd like to maybe see it play a bigger role in character creation and development - maybe feats based on particular alignments for instance.
Regardless, I hope that OneD&D brings us all a new direction that is flexible, loyal, classic, modern, sustainable and fun all in one. If it's done right, it can last for generations. Fingers crossed...
My current campaign has Orcs and other Greenskins as an oppressed people forced out of there home lands by the evil Etreshan Empire, a mix of the "good" races of DnD who believe in racial purity (no half races) and the "greenskin" is only good as a slave, sport or dead.
My players love it, the shades of grey in this new world they came into. The idea that yes this orc tribe is causing issues, but, look at what they have lived through for these many many years.
If a Player Character can be any alignment then, in world, every member of that race is also capable of being any alignment. The idea that a race must be evil and the player character is an outlier might work in some stories, but I have never applied it to any of my roleplaying systems in the almost 25 years I have been DMIng.
in terms of flavour, these rules will never have the prose and story that they actual PHB will, I have no doubt that the various subraces will be talked about and suggested as roleplaying ideas, but mechanically why does a mountain and hill dwarf need to be different, there isn't enough variation in there way of life to explain that away.
Trying to pretend it's not a new edition and calling it 1D&D is going to work out as well as when they tried calling 5e 'D&D Next', people are going to call it a new edition regardless.
I understand why they are removing half-races for players, but does this mean things like Orogs, Ogrillons, Half-dragons don't exist as separate things either? It's not exactly backwards compatible but not unmanageable.
Humans and Tieflings can be Small now, but not Dwarves? Might as well let there be short Elves too. Standardizing speed to 30 is a good change.
Dragonborn darkvision is good. I agree the dragonborn breath weapon should be part of the attack action, they do want people to use it, right? Wouldn't that make them the dragonborniest dragonborn? (sorry, but they started it)
Ardling looks interesting, I'd rather have Aasimar as a PHB race than a totally new one, although any core race with a flight ability is going to be interesting and maybe need some playtesting.
And why make the gnomish clockwork stuff deteriorate after 8 hours, my music box just falls apart in the pack while we travel? At least let them wind it up each day and make it last 24 hours like it did before. If they are worried about selling it put some limit on that. I'm not sure how this makes the gnomiest gnome (sorry again) when their inventions just fall apart so easily.
I do use languages, and adding sign language is a good inclusion that even has some useful advantages, but they should just make one list and drop the Standard/Rare stuff, it leads to confusing wording in the Background section and getting rid of confusing wording should be more important in a new edition than changing how we roll dice. I would also like to see a Cthonic umbrella language for Abyssal/Infernal like Primordial.
Replacing the background features with feats is great, backgrounds were seldom used and very situational, but some of the 1st level feats are much stronger than others. Would like to see a few more like a fixed Grappler and 2WF (maybe those will be class options), and Lucky or Savage Attacker seem much better than Tavern Brawler letting you shove a giant and attack with a barstool, or getting a few extra skill profs that seem to be less important in these revised rules.
Codifying Tools & Proficiency to give advantage synergy is a good move, although it probably makes some tools much better than others since you'll see a lot more rolls with Thieves' Tools than Cobbler's Tools. But that was still the case before so it's fine.
Spell List stuff looks neat, presumably more will come with class descriptions but it has promise.
Grappled condition changes seem all right, having it affect attack rolls is good for threat control, being able to attack and attempt to escape in the same turn is also welcome, but maybe add the ability to use action to do a skill check instead of the saving throw. That seems like another weakening of skill proficiency although maybe there's good reason for that.
Incapacitated taking away speech, I sometimes used this for really drunk or enthralled/astounded so I am not thrilled with that, would prefer to see something that incapacitates mention it also silences as part of the spell or feature, but I can live with it. The other changes to it are fine.
Inspiration, it's always bothered me that they didn't come up with a better term to separate this from Bardic Insipiration, but we're definitely stuck with it now. Getting it on a 20 and other sources, and losing it on long rest should make it more of a thing I suppose, it got overlooked most of the time in my experience. Maybe it should also have more options like actually allowing a reroll or being used against an attacker, since that is another way it gets used when it sees actual play.
Unarmed Strikes, will need to test some of the changes, especially the grapple stuff. Previously it didn't see much use outside of monks or maybe some creatures that have a decent damaging strike, but the changes could make it more interesting.
Two things that I didn't see that I wanted them to actually fix:
Death Saves and Instant Death rule - It seems like removing monster crits was intended to reduce low level player death, but maybe getting rid of the rule that negative damage beyond max HP is the real problem there, since I've only ever seen that kill very low level characters. The other unaddressed problem is the death yo-yo where it's better to let someone go to 0hp and use healing to revive them than to keep them from going to 0hp. I don't know the best solution, or the best way to discourage that, but I would have appreciated something to test there. And maybe Death Saves should go back to CON saves so modifier and proficiency make a difference, especially if there's something like exhaustion for failing a death save while unconscious. Again I would have much rather seen them try to fix this with rules changes than mess with crits or d20 checks.
Long Rest STILL has this very confusing wording around whether spellcasting interrupts it. If it's 1 hour of spellcasting, nobody does that outside of ceremony, find familiar, and a few very situational spells ... but if spellcasting doesn't interrupt the rest, can you just use some spell slots for long lasting buffs a few minutes before the rest ends and get the slots back immediately? I don't think they have ever sufficiently answered this and here was another chance to clear things up and it's still just up to the DM to make a judgement call.
At least they did add the part where Long Rest interrupted after at least an hour counts as Short Rest, I always played it that way but it's good to make it official.
My biggest issue with Inspiration is that players already have so many ways to create advantage to anything other then a saving throw, you can support another player for an ability or skill check, you can get flanking, the help action, or a myriad other ways in combat. Sometimes DM's just hand it out for a roll because it makes sense. This additional way of getting advantage means that it becomes almost pointless to try and make disadvantage a thing other than making them use up an inspiration.
After taking a few days to digest everything, here is my feel on what we have:
Rules Glossary
Arcane Spells - Almost half of the classes use this one spell list. Most of the classes make sense, with the one significant exception of the Bard. Based on its assignment to this Spell List, it would make the most sense that the Bard’s Role within a party will somewhat change in D&D One. That’s not necessarily bad, but it will place more of a premium on players who are taking classes with access to the more support oriented spell lists. If addressed well within the Bard class UA, then this isn’t an issue … but I am concerned that relegating the Bard to the Arcane Spell class makes them less of a support character … which is kind of their whole thing.
D20 Test - First of all, the name is underwhelming. “Test of Fate” or something like that has a little more punch, but I get that clarity is probably more important than style.
It does make a lot of sense to make the rules uniform for when we roll dice. So that’s good. Because of what follows with Natural 1s and Natural 20s, the second paragraph needs to be fleshed out so that newer players and DMs understand how important it is NOT to allow a roll if they decide that declared action will always succeed or will always fail. Perhaps a few samples of times that a DM would not allow for a roll. Here’s some suggested language:
“The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and nor greater than 30. The DM should be careful not to call for d20 Test unless there is a chance for either success or failure. The DM should not call for a d20 Test, if for instance:
A player tries to use the persuasion skill to convince a NPC to take a course of action that the NPC would not take under any circumstance;
A player tries to use the stealth skill to sneak past a creature while moving directly through their line of sight;
A player tries to use the athletics skill to jump across a chasm that is fifty feet across;
A player tries to use an attack roll to shoot an arrow at an enemy behind full cover;
A player tries to use counterspell against a creature that they cannot see.”
With language like this, it becomes clear for newer DMs that if you're not OK with an auto-pass or auto-fail, do not call for a d20 roll … then the change is fine.
Critical Hits - I do not like this change. First, if players can crit, monsters should be able to crit. Making combat encounters less dangerous for players is not going to be helpful in balancing already published materials. Also, taking away critical hits from spells involving attack rolls and sneak attack is in my opinion a mistake. I get that critical hit swings can be large … but that’s one of the significant flavors of combat. Tables roar when somebody gets a critical hit on a big attack roll. Taking that away may add more predictability, but at the cost of flavor and danger. This is the only change in the UA that I feel needs to be abandoned.
Divine Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Grappled - I think these changes are fine.
Inspiration - I love these changes. Making inspiration more influential and giving an incentive to use it is all good. I get that this was supposed to make up perhaps to some extent trying to compensate for the nerf to critical hits, but I don't think the buff here added to critical hits as written in 5e would significantly impact gameplay. Keep this and lose the nerfs to critical hits.
Primal Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Slowed Condition - I very much like the language here. I think it should add language something like this part of the slow spell - “A creature so affected can’t use Reactions. On its turn, it can use either an Action or a bonus Action, not both.”
Tool Proficiency - I like this change, but feel like there’s an issue for how this would negate expertise as written. Perhaps have tool use be called by a different term (maybe competence?) and then having competence with tools grant advantage on checks with the tool and relying on the proficiency bonus from the skill would allow expertise to still function as intended? Also making the character roll the check with disadvantage if they do not have competence with the tool? I think this one needs a little work. But conceptually allowing proficiency and tool competency stack is a good idea.
Unarmed Strikes - This is all good. Yay for Monks!
Character Races
Generally speaking I love the vast majority of changes to the races listed. Having a counterpoint to Tieflings is good. I'm not sure I love the varying animal appearance, but otherwise the mechanics for Ardling all look good. I really love that we can now choose the ability score that we use for race-determined spells. I’m only going to mention two things I would like to change:
Dragonborn - The Dragonborn race remains mechanically underwhelming. I would suggest three changes:
Incorporate Breath Weapon into Draconic Ancestry, otherwise Draconic Ancestry has no real mechanical benefit on its own. Also, it will help balance my suggested change to Children of Different Humanoid Kinds listed later.
Grant them a skill appropriate for the race. I think intimidation is the most obvious option. Because, you know, they look like dragons. “You have Proficiency in the Intimidation Skill.”
Buff Breath weapon to a D12, or make it a bonus action, or buff it in some other way. It’s still underwhelming as an ability and will not be used frequently, especially at higher levels. That’s a problem since it’s probably the most flavorful special trait a dragonborn has.
Children of Different Humanoid Kinds - I like including Orc, getting rid of Half-Orc and Half-Elf, and saying all humanoids can create half-kin by mating with other races. So that’s all good. However, I think “Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits” is a waste of potential flexibility. I would suggest:
“Next, determine which of those Race options provides your size and speed. Then pick two Special Traits from each of the two races that influence your lineage. You cannot take more than one of any of the following special traits: Versatile, Celestial Legacy, Draconic Ancestry (incorporating Breath Weapon as mentioned above), Dwarven Toughness, Elven Lineage, Gnomish Lineage, Luck, Adrenaline Rush, and Fiendish Legacy. Also, you cannot take more than one special trait that grants damage resistance.”
Character Backgrounds
All of it is very good. This is how it should be. I very much hope that suggested personality traits related to sample backgrounds are still included in the player’s handbook somewhere. Also, I really hope some version of the Heroic Chronicle is in the Player’s Handbook.
Feats
Conceptually I love adding in feats as part of backgrounds and that they are limiting feats at certain levels. I only have two feat-specific notes:
Crafter - this is very underpowered and will rarely be chosen unless somebody just wants it for flavor. The percentages need to be higher. Also maybe grant a bonus to goods you sell using your Artisan Tool, showing their quality?
Lucky - I could see the “Advantage” part of the feat being problematic when combined with a roll that started with disadvantage. I don’t think a character should be able to roll with disadvantage, and then if they get a 1 turn it into rolling with advantage. Now the rule-as-written says “a d20 for a d20 Test” so arguably you couldn’t do it with advantage or disadvantage, since rolling two d20s is not rolling “a d20,” but it needs to be more clear in my opinion.
Im all for trying to make Inspiration more popular, but Id like to see it explored in new ways beyond just advantage. For example, I think it could be fun if Inspiration had a narrative influence, where a player could expend a point of inspiration to make additions/changes to narrative elements usually reserved for the DM (within reason), things that play with the ideas of coincidence or fate. Turn inspiration into a "Yes, and..." moment for the player. This way, good roleplay can be rewarded with stronger influence over the story rather than just another tool for rolling dice. I think the Star Wars RPGs have a similar mechanic.
Granted, this sort of change to inspiration could become a nightmare if not properly fleshed out with examples, as I could foresee a player thinking they can flat out cancel anything the DM says in the narrative using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
After taking a few days to digest everything, here is my feel on what we have:
Rules Glossary
Arcane Spells - Almost half of the classes use this one spell list. Most of the classes make sense, with the one significant exception of the Bard. Based on its assignment to this Spell List, it would make the most sense that the Bard’s Role within a party will somewhat change in D&D One. That’s not necessarily bad, but it will place more of a premium on players who are taking classes with access to the more support oriented spell lists. If addressed well within the Bard class UA, then this isn’t an issue … but I am concerned that relegating the Bard to the Arcane Spell class makes them less of a support character … which is kind of their whole thing.
D20 Test - First of all, the name is underwhelming. “Test of Fate” or something like that has a little more punch, but I get that clarity is probably more important than style.
It does make a lot of sense to make the rules uniform for when we roll dice. So that’s good. Because of what follows with Natural 1s and Natural 20s, the second paragraph needs to be fleshed out so that newer DMs understand how important it is NOT to allow a roll if they decide that declared action will always succeed or will always fail. Perhaps a few samples of times that a DM would not allow for a roll. Here’s some suggested language:
“The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and nor greater than 30. The DM should be careful not to call for d20 Test unless there is a chance for either success or failure. The DM should not call for a d20 Test, if for instance:
A player tries to use the persuasion skill to convince a NPC to take a course of action that the NPC would not take under any circumstance;
A player tries to use the stealth skill to sneak past a creature while moving directly through their line of sight;
A player tries to use the athletics skill to jump across a chasm that is fifty feet across;
A player tries to use an attack roll to shoot an arrow at an enemy behind full cover;
A player tries to use counterspell against a creature that they cannot see.”
With language like this, it becomes clear for newer DMs that if you're not OK with an auto-pass or auto-fail, do not call for a d20 roll … then the change is fine.
Critical Hits - I do not like this change. First, if players can crit, monsters should be able to crit. Making combat encounters less dangerous for players is not going to be helpful in balancing already published materials. Also, taking away critical hits from spells involving attack rolls and sneak attack is in my opinion a mistake. I get that critical hit swings can be large … but that’s one of the significant flavors of combat. Tables roar when somebody gets a critical hit on a big attack roll. Taking that away may add more predictability, but at the cost of flavor and danger. This is the only change in the UA that I feel needs to be abandoned.
Divine Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Grappled - I think these changes are fine.
Inspiration - I love these changes. Making inspiration more influential and giving an incentive to use it is all good. I get that this was supposed to make up perhaps to some extent trying to compensate for the nerf to critical hits, but I don't think the buff here added to critical hits as written in 5e would not significantly impact gameplay. Keep this and lose the nerfs to critical hits.
Primal Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Slowed Condition - I very much like the language here. I think it should add language something like this part of the slow spell - “A creature so affected can’t use Reactions. On its turn, it can use either an Action or a bonus Action, not both.”
Tool Proficiency - I like this change, but feel like there’s an issue for how this would negate expertise as written. Perhaps have tool use be called by a different term (maybe competence?) and then having competence with tools grant advantage on checks with the tool and relying on the proficiency bonus from the skill would allow expertise to still function as intended? Also making the character roll the check with disadvantage if they do not have competence with the tool? I think this one needs a little work. But conceptually allowing proficiency and tool competency stack is a good idea.
Unarmed Strikes - This is all good. Yay for Monks!
Character Races
Generally speaking I love the vast majority of changes to the races listed. Having a counterpoint to Tieflings is good. I'm not sure I love the varying animal appearance, but otherwise the mechanics for Ardling all look good. I really love that we can now choose the ability score that we use for race-determined spells. I’m only going to mention two things I would like to change:
Dragonborn - The Dragonborn race remains mechanically underwhelming. I would suggest three changes:
Incorporate Breath Weapon into Draconic Ancestry, otherwise Draconic Ancestry has no real mechanical benefit on its own. Also, it will help balance my suggested change to Children of Different Humanoid Kinds listed later.
Grant them a skill appropriate for the race. I think intimidation is the most obvious option. Because, you know, they look like dragons. “You have Proficiency in the Intimidation Skill.”
Buff Breath weapon to a D12, or make it a bonus action, or buff it in some other way. It’s still underwhelming as an ability and will not be used frequently, especially at higher levels. That’s a problem since it’s probably the most flavorful special trait a dragonborn has.
Children of Different Humanoid Kinds - I like including Orc, getting rid of Half-Orc and Half-Elf, and saying all humanoids can create half-kin by mating with other races. So that’s all good. However, I think “Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits” is a waste of potential flexibility. I would suggest:
“Next, determine which of those Race options provides your size and speed. Then pick two Special Traits from each of the two races that influence your lineage. You cannot take more than one of any of the following special traits: Versatile, Celestial Legacy, Draconic Ancestry (incorporating Breath Weapon as mentioned above), Dwarven Toughness, Elven Lineage, Gnomish Lineage, Luck, Adrenaline Rush, and Fiendish Legacy. Also, you cannot take more than one special trait that grants damage resistance.”
Character Backgrounds
All of it is very good. This is how it should be. I very much hope that suggested personality traits related to sample backgrounds are still included in the player’s handbook somewhere. Also, I really hope some version of the Heroic Chronicle is in the Player’s Handbook.
Feats
Conceptually I love adding in feats as part of backgrounds and that they are limiting feats at certain levels. I only have two feat-specific notes:
Crafter - this is very underpowered and will rarely be chosen unless somebody just wants it for flavor. The percentages need to be higher. Also maybe grant a bonus to goods you sell using your Artisan Tool, showing their quality?
Lucky - I could see the “Advantage” part of the feat being problematic when combined with a roll that started with disadvantage. I don’t think a character should be able to roll with disadvantage, and then if they get a 1 turn it into rolling with advantage. Now the rule-as-written says “a d20 for a d20 Test” so arguably you couldn’t do it with advantage or disadvantage, since rolling two d20s is not rolling “a d20,” but it needs to be more clear in my opinion.
I agree with some of what you have put here.
First of all, not a disagreement but Jeremy Crawford said that the new Spell lists where additions to and not replacements of the spell lists as we know them, my take on this is that you treat them as they are, a list of spells that Wizards (of the coast, not, pointy hat variety). can use to allocate the non standard magic users to instead of having to provide lists of spells they can take that then need updating every time there is a release. instead you have 3 additional lists that spells get added to in the future. So Bards, Wizards etc will not be picking from the arcane list, they will have there own very special lists to go from.
Crits, this has gone back and forth, I respect you don't like the change, I do, I do feel that monsters need a buff of some description to account now for the lack of a spike hit. I have run a bunch of encounters bot with players and on my own and the general sense is that the rules work, the rogue didn't feel overly nerfed by it and took advantage of the extra inspiration they got to carve a sneak attack from a situation they would not have got one previously.
Advantage. Has got seriously out of had now, the new inspiration rules combined with the myriad ways a character can get advantage through the game mean that disadvantage will more than likely rarely be a thing at the table. I like the new inspiration rules, I like it as a replacement for no weapon double damage, but, some of the other means of getting advantage need to be taken away. It used to be getting advantage was a special thing that made a player feel excited or lucky, now, if a player hasn't worked out a way to get advantage on a roll it is a rare occasion.
Half races I agree something different needs to be done, I have created a couple now and they just felt a bit flat, especially trying to explain why the character has all the traits of one race and none of the other.
Dragonborn, if we are going to be told DnD 5e is backwards conpatable, and release a book that overhauls Dragonborn can we at least not take some influence from the cool aspects of the book lol.
First of all, not a disagreement but Jeremy Crawford said that the new Spell lists where additions to and not replacements of the spell lists as we know them, my take on this is that you treat them as they are, a list of spells that Wizards (of the coast, not, pointy hat variety). can use to allocate the non standard magic users to instead of having to provide lists of spells they can take that then need updating every time there is a release. instead you have 3 additional lists that spells get added to in the future. So Bards, Wizards etc will not be picking from the arcane list, they will have there own very special lists to go from.
Now that you've said it, I do remember him saying that in the video... so that's probably not a concern then.
Crits, this has gone back and forth, I respect you don't like the change, I do, I do feel that monsters need a buff of some description to account now for the lack of a spike hit. I have run a bunch of encounters bot with players and on my own and the general sense is that the rules work, the rogue didn't feel overly nerfed by it and took advantage of the extra inspiration they got to carve a sneak attack from a situation they would not have got one previously.
That's all fair. I get what they're going for. I just like the swings as they are. Features that add variety to combat are generally speaking good in my opinion. It's all a balance for sure, but I think where the balance is currently is better than what they're suggesting. I'm not in a fit of rage over it, but it's definitely the change I like the least.
Advantage. Has got seriously out of had now, the new inspiration rules combined with the myriad ways a character can get advantage through the game mean that disadvantage will more than likely rarely be a thing at the table. I like the new inspiration rules, I like it as a replacement for no weapon double damage, but, some of the other means of getting advantage need to be taken away. It used to be getting advantage was a special thing that made a player feel excited or lucky, now, if a player hasn't worked out a way to get advantage on a roll it is a rare occasion.
There definitely is a lot of advantage for tactically minded players ... but I kind of like that.
Half races I agree something different needs to be done, I have created a couple now and they just felt a bit flat, especially trying to explain why the character has all the traits of one race and none of the other.
Dragonborn, if we are going to be told DnD 5e is backwards conpatable, and release a book that overhauls Dragonborn can we at least not take some influence from the cool aspects of the book lol.
Yeah I feel pretty strongly about doing something different with half races. It just seems like such a waste to say they're mechanically indistinct from one of their lineages, and totally unlike the other. It seems completely counter-intuitive. Dragonborn definitely need some work. There is a reason it has morphed over the course of 5e so far.
After taking a few days to digest everything, here is my feel on what we have:
Rules Glossary
Arcane Spells - Almost half of the classes use this one spell list. Most of the classes make sense, with the one significant exception of the Bard. Based on its assignment to this Spell List, it would make the most sense that the Bard’s Role within a party will somewhat change in D&D One. That’s not necessarily bad, but it will place more of a premium on players who are taking classes with access to the more support oriented spell lists. If addressed well within the Bard class UA, then this isn’t an issue … but I am concerned that relegating the Bard to the Arcane Spell class makes them less of a support character … which is kind of their whole thing.
D20 Test - First of all, the name is underwhelming. “Test of Fate” or something like that has a little more punch, but I get that clarity is probably more important than style.
It does make a lot of sense to make the rules uniform for when we roll dice. So that’s good. Because of what follows with Natural 1s and Natural 20s, the second paragraph needs to be fleshed out so that newer DMs understand how important it is NOT to allow a roll if they decide that declared action will always succeed or will always fail. Perhaps a few samples of times that a DM would not allow for a roll. Here’s some suggested language:
“The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and nor greater than 30. The DM should be careful not to call for d20 Test unless there is a chance for either success or failure. The DM should not call for a d20 Test, if for instance:
A player tries to use the persuasion skill to convince a NPC to take a course of action that the NPC would not take under any circumstance;
A player tries to use the stealth skill to sneak past a creature while moving directly through their line of sight;
A player tries to use the athletics skill to jump across a chasm that is fifty feet across;
A player tries to use an attack roll to shoot an arrow at an enemy behind full cover;
A player tries to use counterspell against a creature that they cannot see.”
With language like this, it becomes clear for newer DMs that if you're not OK with an auto-pass or auto-fail, do not call for a d20 roll … then the change is fine.
Critical Hits - I do not like this change. First, if players can crit, monsters should be able to crit. Making combat encounters less dangerous for players is not going to be helpful in balancing already published materials. Also, taking away critical hits from spells involving attack rolls and sneak attack is in my opinion a mistake. I get that critical hit swings can be large … but that’s one of the significant flavors of combat. Tables roar when somebody gets a critical hit on a big attack roll. Taking that away may add more predictability, but at the cost of flavor and danger. This is the only change in the UA that I feel needs to be abandoned.
Divine Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Grappled - I think these changes are fine.
Inspiration - I love these changes. Making inspiration more influential and giving an incentive to use it is all good. I get that this was supposed to make up perhaps to some extent trying to compensate for the nerf to critical hits, but I don't think the buff here added to critical hits as written in 5e would not significantly impact gameplay. Keep this and lose the nerfs to critical hits.
Primal Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Slowed Condition - I very much like the language here. I think it should add language something like this part of the slow spell - “A creature so affected can’t use Reactions. On its turn, it can use either an Action or a bonus Action, not both.”
Tool Proficiency - I like this change, but feel like there’s an issue for how this would negate expertise as written. Perhaps have tool use be called by a different term (maybe competence?) and then having competence with tools grant advantage on checks with the tool and relying on the proficiency bonus from the skill would allow expertise to still function as intended? Also making the character roll the check with disadvantage if they do not have competence with the tool? I think this one needs a little work. But conceptually allowing proficiency and tool competency stack is a good idea.
Unarmed Strikes - This is all good. Yay for Monks!
Character Races
Generally speaking I love the vast majority of changes to the races listed. Having a counterpoint to Tieflings is good. I'm not sure I love the varying animal appearance, but otherwise the mechanics for Ardling all look good. I really love that we can now choose the ability score that we use for race-determined spells. I’m only going to mention two things I would like to change:
Dragonborn - The Dragonborn race remains mechanically underwhelming. I would suggest three changes:
Incorporate Breath Weapon into Draconic Ancestry, otherwise Draconic Ancestry has no real mechanical benefit on its own. Also, it will help balance my suggested change to Children of Different Humanoid Kinds listed later.
Grant them a skill appropriate for the race. I think intimidation is the most obvious option. Because, you know, they look like dragons. “You have Proficiency in the Intimidation Skill.”
Buff Breath weapon to a D12, or make it a bonus action, or buff it in some other way. It’s still underwhelming as an ability and will not be used frequently, especially at higher levels. That’s a problem since it’s probably the most flavorful special trait a dragonborn has.
Children of Different Humanoid Kinds - I like including Orc, getting rid of Half-Orc and Half-Elf, and saying all humanoids can create half-kin by mating with other races. So that’s all good. However, I think “Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits” is a waste of potential flexibility. I would suggest:
“Next, determine which of those Race options provides your size and speed. Then pick two Special Traits from each of the two races that influence your lineage. You cannot take more than one of any of the following special traits: Versatile, Celestial Legacy, Draconic Ancestry (incorporating Breath Weapon as mentioned above), Dwarven Toughness, Elven Lineage, Gnomish Lineage, Luck, Adrenaline Rush, and Fiendish Legacy. Also, you cannot take more than one special trait that grants damage resistance.”
Character Backgrounds
All of it is very good. This is how it should be. I very much hope that suggested personality traits related to sample backgrounds are still included in the player’s handbook somewhere. Also, I really hope some version of the Heroic Chronicle is in the Player’s Handbook.
Feats
Conceptually I love adding in feats as part of backgrounds and that they are limiting feats at certain levels. I only have two feat-specific notes:
Crafter - this is very underpowered and will rarely be chosen unless somebody just wants it for flavor. The percentages need to be higher. Also maybe grant a bonus to goods you sell using your Artisan Tool, showing their quality?
Lucky - I could see the “Advantage” part of the feat being problematic when combined with a roll that started with disadvantage. I don’t think a character should be able to roll with disadvantage, and then if they get a 1 turn it into rolling with advantage. Now the rule-as-written says “a d20 for a d20 Test” so arguably you couldn’t do it with advantage or disadvantage, since rolling two d20s is not rolling “a d20,” but it needs to be more clear in my opinion.
I agree with some of what you have put here.
First of all, not a disagreement but Jeremy Crawford said that the new Spell lists where additions to and not replacements of the spell lists as we know them, my take on this is that you treat them as they are, a list of spells that Wizards (of the coast, not, pointy hat variety). can use to allocate the non standard magic users to instead of having to provide lists of spells they can take that then need updating every time there is a release. instead you have 3 additional lists that spells get added to in the future. So Bards, Wizards etc will not be picking from the arcane list, they will have there own very special lists to go from.
Crits, this has gone back and forth, I respect you don't like the change, I do, I do feel that monsters need a buff of some description to account now for the lack of a spike hit. I have run a bunch of encounters bot with players and on my own and the general sense is that the rules work, the rogue didn't feel overly nerfed by it and took advantage of the extra inspiration they got to carve a sneak attack from a situation they would not have got one previously.
Advantage. Has got seriously out of had now, the new inspiration rules combined with the myriad ways a character can get advantage through the game mean that disadvantage will more than likely rarely be a thing at the table. I like the new inspiration rules, I like it as a replacement for no weapon double damage, but, some of the other means of getting advantage need to be taken away. It used to be getting advantage was a special thing that made a player feel excited or lucky, now, if a player hasn't worked out a way to get advantage on a roll it is a rare occasion.
Half races I agree something different needs to be done, I have created a couple now and they just felt a bit flat, especially trying to explain why the character has all the traits of one race and none of the other.
Dragonborn, if we are going to be told DnD 5e is backwards conpatable, and release a book that overhauls Dragonborn can we at least not take some influence from the cool aspects of the book lol.
First I need to start with NO Jeremy did not say that we wouldn't be getting rid of class spell lists he specifically said the exact opposite at the 46:20 second mark he says "People will have to wait for upcoming Unearthed Arcanas to see how CLASSES use those spell lists, because classes ARE going to use those lists, but classes are also going to have access to spells that go beyond those universal lists." confirming that classes WILL use these spell lists, but maybe not in their entirety and not ONLY these spell lists. For example, bard is not likely to have access to the whole arcane spell list and will also likely have access to a few spells outside the arcane spell list, but bard WILL likely reference the arcane spell list, and maybe even other spell lists.
Love the new changed but some are not good or we just info on the reasoning.
Races: The first thing I noticed is that races don't give any stat increase anymore, while this gives a lot of room in role-playing and the ability to choose a race without thinking about stats it also makes races a bit less special to be honest and have an idea that a lot would always take a race to at least have darkvision so they never really have to worry about light. Also not sure if it is right to give humans Inspiration after a long rest and I don't see why they would get it anyway? The new races like Orc and Ardling looks fun and looking forward to test them further.
Backgrounds: I'm in love with the fact you gain a feat at level 1 as feats are just fun and gives a character more freedom in choosing what he or she wants. Have to get used to the fact you only gain ability scores from your background now and while it gives a lot of freedom in making your character I still think races should provide +1 in what fits with the race.
Feats: Crafter, crafting was always meh in this game and wonder if in new edition it gets better else as a feat it seems underwhelming. The discount: Whenever you buy an nonmagical item, you receive aa 20 percent discount on it. The way it is written you would even get 20% of a beer you buy at the inn, which doesn't fit with the theme of the feat, so would reword it differently.
Skilled: I think it should not be repeatable as it is really powerful.
D20 test: Rolling a 1 is an automatic fail, not sure if I like this especially if a person is proficient in the ability and it always felt weird someone with a rolling a 1 but add +6 would fail while a person rolling a 2 and have +1 could succeed. For the same reason I don't like an automatic succeed with a 20 as you sometimes set a high number as it is almost impossible and only someone who is really proficient would be able to pull it off. For same reason like the first one it would feel weird when someone rolls 18 and have +6 would fail the task while the other who is not good in that skill get a 20 and succeed.
Critical Hit: Like many I feel that this is what makes combat fun and the fact that neither DM nor casters can now critical hit it feels really bad and would like to know the reasoning behind it. I can imagine if spells are handled differently in that it would give some effect at rolling a 20 then it is fine but if it means casters who roll a 20 on their hit and get nothing then this is just bad and unrewarding.I personally also will miss critting myself as DM as that could also result in some unexpected developments during combat, but can see that if you do a special attack it could instantly kill a party member.
Grappled condition: What is the DC for ending a grapple? Never really know how to rule this is it something like 8 + proficiency + dex or str?
Inspiration: Love the way it works and will use it directly in my campaign as I simply always forget to award Inspiration and even if I reward it chances are very high the player forgets to use it, think with this change people use it more and get used to it and don't forget they have it.
Spells: With 3 main spell lists you have for example cure wounds listed as divine as well as primal, seems weird to have same spell be on different spell lists, doesn't it make more sense to change the name of the spell then?
Overall love the new stuff and cannot wait to test more of it.
I can't find the feedback survey (I'm guessing it's opening up later, probably some US-Centric time?) so posting some feedback here for now.
Races:
Absolutely love that ability scores have been shifted away from races overall to backgrounds. Feels a lot more fitting, helps remove the problem of bio-essentialism in D&D, and helps to make backgrounds something actually important mechanically (5e often has backgrounds relegated to effectively just a few bonus proficiencies and then you forget about the mechanical choice). Also, very good that languages have moved overall away from races too with a few special exceptions.
I think having one more consistent term for "Subraces" and listing the relevant info under a slightly clearer section for each race might be good, just a small little gripe that is as it can be a little confusing how it's laid out right now.
Darkvision I would suggest making always be the first listed trait if it's intrinsic to a race, because it's often quite a mechanically important thing, and it's usually listed in the races pretty high up, by occasionally (such as in Dragonborn) rather low down.
Spellcasting related to races having a choice of modifier is an awesome addition. I might suggest adding the choice of constitution as a fourth choice, as it's quite useful for non-spellcaster characters who have a race that happens to have some innate spellcasting, so offers that added flexibility, and flavour-wise makes sense as well (and occurs in some 5e races, such as I believe Genasi?)
Humans - Actually kind of mechanically interesting while fully fitting the flavour of humans in D&D.
Ardlings - Interesting race idea, seems a nice mix of abilities.
Dragonborn - No qualms at all, and I like that draconic is actually still known by them intrinsically, it's an interesting quirk with the potential for some fun flavour.
Dwarf - I noticed that Dwarf's are now only a medium creature, which is weird, especially given that both humans and ardlings get a choice between small and medium. I would suggest dwarfs get the same choice, as they are pretty much known consistently by people to be smaller than your average race. On a separate note, I love the new stonecunning feature.
Elf & Gnomes - No issues at all.
Halfling - Slightly disappointing at the loss of any halfling subraces. Even simply two would be quite nice.
Tiefling - I love the addition of Tieflings related to the other evil planes.
The slightly more formulaic structure of some abilities is better now too. There's still a lot of uniqueness to the races and subraces, but similar features now working quite identically mechanically helps make any homebrew tweaks to them easier.
Backgrounds
I love adding ability score improvements to this. Was a brilliant move.
Tool/language proficiencies: I would suggest making a choice between 1 tool and 1 language, or 2 languages.
I love the addition of sample backgrounds like Farmer, Guide, Laborer, and Pilgrim.
Is Druidic and Thieves' Cant now a valid choice for a background language knowledge? I think this would actually be a good idea, but it may be good just to clarify that given previously you could not.
I would suggest bullet pointing the "languages you know" section, as it's easy to overlook that you know common AND a standard language of your choice as well as the language gained from your background.
Feats
Alert - This is awesome, I love the initiative swap feature.
Crafter - Also awesome, I like the mix of applications the feat has.
Battle Medic - by contrast to the previous two feats, this still seems a little weak. I would suggest it should give proficiency (or half proficiency) in medicine checks and the healers kit too?
Lucky - Yep, this is fine.
Magic Initiate - This is nice, the tweak to spell lists is intriguing but will need more info on that before it can really be commented on.
Musician - This seems again to suffer a little bit like Battle Medic, but probably less so, especially given the inspiration is on both short and long rests.
Savage Attacker - There's not much to say about this to be honest.
Skilled - This is reasonable. It would be nice to have some feat way of getting expertise too (much like 5e's Skill Expert), perhaps making Skilled have a choice of that might be possible? Then again, being indefinitely repeatable may make it be rather powerful. Perhaps the possibility of some repeatable feats having a limit to how many times they can be taken would be possible?
Tavern Brawler - Overall, this is great, but...
I seriously think making Unarmed Strikes a finesse weapon would be a smart idea. This would mean that taking this feat would bring unarmed strikes somewhat close to being on par with a dagger, and unarmed strikes would be a viable very weak attack for dex-based characters. IRL, it's possible to hurt someone without using lots of strength, and given unarmed strikes are quite weak by standard, it's weird that they lack the finesse property.
I do like the addition of shove and furniture as weapons all rolled into 1 feat here. It's a good call.
Tough - This consistently feels both in 5e and in One D&D as a weak feat, but giving more of a HP boost would probably be too much. I might suggest the same mechanic as the Orc's Relentless Endurance feature would be a good addition, although it would make this feat slightly more redundant for Orcs as a downside. It would however make this feat line up quite well with a few of the earlier ones in having a more 'passive' and an additional more infrequent benefit.
D20 Test
Firstly, this is a kind of stupid name change. It doesn't roll off the tongue, also should it be just "D20 Test" or "The D20 Test", and it's just unnecessary to change it's name. Let's just call it "d20 rolls", because it does apply to all rolls of size d20 (ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws covers all d20 rolls in D&D). Also, I think generally stating "ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws" in any features that affect those rolls would be more clear than creating a specific phrase for them, and doesn't make features that much more verbose. It saves having to look up another section then.
I agree in spirit to the "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20", but I think being a bit more specific on the wording of these sections and explaining a bit more would be good. I fundamentally agree every d20 roll should have a chance of success and a chance of failure though, otherwise it's redundant.
Rules Glossary
Generally fine, but I would suggest Conditions should be taken out of the glossary into their own dedicated section immediately preceding it, as there are a fair few conditions in D&D and they are vitally mechanically important, so losing them among the glossary due to it's alphabetical ordering is unideal.
Spell Lists
Need to see how these will interact with classes, but this feels like a neat idea. I disagree with caelis82on their opinion that spells should be name-swapped or be on only a single list.
I gave some feedback to the races and background system for origins. Main thing for me was that the half-race mechanics felt lackluster and I feel that Warcaster should be a first level feat for its ability to cast spells while your hands are holding weapons. For example, Paladin is unable to cast some spells like Divine Favor if they go Sword and Board because they have a somatic component but lack a material component.
For d20 Tests, I went all in on how I am against Nat 1/20 auto fail/success, specifically the auto fail on Nat 1's. If someone has a modifier that is high enough to succeed on a Nat 1, they should be allowed to do so. From the years of experience I had running with auto fail/success on nat 1/20 in 5E, rolling a nat 1 and failing when your modifier is higher than the DC just feels miserable. The worst part is that regardless of whether or not this rule makes it into the official release, the people who are for it are unlikely to see a change as they are unlikely to build characters whom can succeed on a Nat 1 while the people that do are going to feel that 5% auto fail and have their experience suffer due to it. So for one side, they have nothing to really gain or lose while the other they have nothing to gain but plenty to lose.
Like there is a reason why this change is so controversial and not uniformly accepted. There are actually a decent number of people who play and enjoy the default rule in 5E for Nat 1/20 where they only affect attack rolls and death saves. At most, auto fail/success should be an optional rule, not the default.
Ardlings -I don't know. Interesting idea, kind of an offshoot of Aasimir. I'd like to see the Aasimir expanded more like the Tieflings have as well.
Dragonborn -Solid.
Dwarf - I don't know that I've ever considered a 5 foot dwarf. Possible humans being shorter than the dwarves does seem a bit off to me. Abilities sit well with the racial history.
Elves - So far so good, but there will need to be quite a bit of expansion on the other elven lineages.
Gnomes - Good.
Halfling - Seems fine.
Orcs - Good.
Tiefling - I like the tiefling simplification with the fiendish legacies. Again, i'd like to see the polar oposite ones for Aasimir like the Ardlings.
Mixed races seems simple enough.
Backgrounds
Backgrounds is spot on. Adjusting ability scores and feats/skills etc should be tied to people's background. To adjust to any that races may have lost you could create a background that fit cleanly into that. Big thumbs up.
I love the addition of sign language, I have a homebrewed version of that in my games that allow for silent communication among those that need it (provided they can see.)
Feats
Alert - Interesting change.
Crafter - I would like to see crafting detailed out a bit more in the game. Yes we have some suggestions on how to do a number of things, and the internet has a lot of homebrew options out there. But some set rules and tables on this would be appreciated. A lot of people will not be intrested in this feat without a lot of discussion with their DM about how crafting can work.
Healer - If you have training in first aid and effective care this feels like it should do a bit more. Advantage on recognizing poisons or diseases for example, and how to treat them. Adding a proficency mod to the heal with the HD roll would be solid too (I saw it suggested above.)
Lucky - Works, but is really powerful for a level 1 feat being you give out advantage/disadvantage. Rogues for example will always choose this for sneak attack.
Magic Initiate - I want to see more about the spell tradition breakdown. But could definately be an interesting addition to backgrounds.
Musician - Maybe add d6 temp HP or something?
Savage Attacker - Fine.
Skilled - Pre-req for expertise?
Tavern Brawler - My cousin would do this one just due to the number of bar fights she likes to start.
Tough - Mechanically doesn't do as much as many of the other feats. Maybe if you are tough you also get advantage or proficency on con saves?
Rules Glossary
Getting a lot of type options. :)
I'm sure some spells will still have some class limitations even within the various spell groupings? Equalizing the cost of tools does seem more fair, but really again, we need some crafting charts to show a value of working with each tool. And have those values be somewhat comprable between skill sets. That way it might even be reasonable for different party members to specialize in different things for an overall greater value to the group.
D20 Test
Erm.... tellme this is a placeholder name. i'd still keep them seperate myself.
Rolling a 1 in combat, fail, of course, and I usually have something bad happen in addition to that. A 1 on skill checks can also be fun, but if their mod is STILL enough for them to pass the roll....
Now the auto success on the d20... is broken. I can tell my table no on things I deme impossible, but I'd rather let them have fun with it. You want to jump that gorge, fine, but you are going to need to hit a 30. One of the best moments my players had at the end of a campagin did involove a natural 20, but it took the Warlock/Cleric having a +5 mod to hit that 25, and that being exactly what she needed, that made her so happy. She was the only one in the group that could do it, and she actually managed to succede. That was huge. You will need to write very specific guidelines for new DMs on what they can let people roll for if you go with the autofail/succeed on skill checks.
Critical Hits - on the player side, it is always a huge moment at the table when someone lands a critical hit. And it should be a huge moment in the story of the battle. An example of a grand feat that they managed to pull off this awesome move. We always add a bit of extra description to a critical hit at my table, for color and flavor. Telling my people "awesome a natural 20... now roll an extra d4." will not... be... awesome. Sometimes, its true, thats all you get to do. Hit someone with a mundane short sword, and you get an extra d6 damage. Okay... But a magical blade with additional fire damage, or ability like a sneak attack really makes that crit an amazing moment in the fight. True I've had a paladin crit with a dragonslayer sword where she burned her divine smite REALLY hurt the dragon I had them fighting, but the people who were around that table still talk about that moment years later. Crits are fun. And they SHOULD be really cool points in a story. Same point for crits on spells. If they land that Natural 20 on that blast of divine energy, awesome, spin that move into a story and illustrate how cool it was.
Critical Hits - NPCs. I get where a crit early on can be really bad for low level chracters. I think most of us DMs have fudged a roll on a level 1 or 2 character, or really ripped into a group. But, those also give us a chance to have great horrifying moments where the players actually get worried. They feel actual fear or panic. Not enough monsters in the game have special abilities to make up for not being able to crit, and special abilities at lower levels can be very dangerous. Maybe up to CR 2 creatures can't crit or something, but that giant that just stomped on someone critically SHOULD be feared.
Helpful NPCs... You don't want them to steal the show of course. But I've never had my players upset that someone they asked to bring along landed a solid blow. Its only bad if they get the kill shot. Unless, again, that NPC is there for story reasons and it doesn't hurt the story at all for them to have killed something.
Spell Lists
I look forward to seeing how this works out.
Conditons
Look good. I want more things to cause the slowed condition. :)
I like how the new system is set up. However upon first impression the lack of critical hits from various sources other than that weapon and unarmed attacks. I'll be putting this in the survey when they release but I'd love to let others add their thoughts on this point.
Yeah, this one is a non-starter. This isn't the way to rebalance monk, which is the only class that actually benefits here. Also if you, the player, get to crit, my mobs get to crit, it's only fair.
Going to break this post up into several parts, addressing the feedback above as well as other thoughts I've had reading through the UA.
-----
Crits: My feeling on crits is ambivalent. On monster crits, at low levels, crits are too swingy, and as a DM I frequently have to fudge a crit into a non-crit so I don't one-shot a player, and then at high levels, the damage from modifiers and the sheer volume of attacks makes the doubling of dice for any one attack really quite negligible. If I was really trying to kill my players, I'd be sad, but I'm not, and honestly, I think there's better ways to add tension to combat than randomly 1-shotting somebody with a crit.
On crit damage from non-weapon sources, we'll see how this plays out. I suspect we'll see Rogue sneak attack rules specifying that this damage counts as weapon damage, and possibly the same for Paladin smites, but who knows. It's definitely a nerf to casters, but casters are probably going to be fine. I also suspect this is one of the few things that's likely to change because historically WotC always caves to the desires of casters, and martials always get sent to the back of the line.
-----
Languages: I honestly think the language rules feel silly and tacked on at this point, like is there any reason we still put languages on our character sheet other than that we always have? This almost never comes up in gameplay in any interesting way. In any official adventure, certainly, and at most tables, any NPC the players are expected to interact with, "roleplay" with, or respect in any way, is going to speak Common (or have some other method of bridging the communication gap from its end, like telepathy), because gating actual adventure content like plot development or quests behind the random chance that at least one of the players chose the right alternative language to unlock it sucks. So therefore, any creature that doesn't speak Common is automatically an Other that doesn't need any consideration if the players don't want to offer any. It kind of signals "This is a <monster>, if you happened to choose <monster language> when you made your character, you can maybe interact with it and at best enjoy a scene of optional roleplaying with it, or you can just kill it at your leisure and that's fine too." Your choice of extra languages at character creation just determines which random groups of Others you may choose to interact with in this way if you're so inclined, but it doesn't matter at all because all the "real" people you're ever going to meet will speak Common anyway. Why can't we just recognize that this sort of gameplay just isn't that interesting, and jettison it?
----
Races: I mostly love all the race updates. The new rules for mixed-heritage are sensible and welcome. The previous limitation of this origin to Half-Elves and Half-Orcs has always been...limiting, so I'm 100% in favor of this update. Most of the updates to the races are fine.
Based on current versions of the spells, the Elf bonus spells seem very strong for all subraces, and I'd be excited to play any type of elf.
Tiefling spells seem ok, not amazing, and Abyssal is clearly lagging the other choices.
Ardling spells are also in the ok range, with Idyllic clearly better than the other choices. The Ardling race in general seems kind of interesting, not really getting me excited right now, but maybe it'll grow on me. I'm not sure why we're getting this and not just the Aasimar for a celestial orgin race, or Tabaxi for a furry race.
Glad to see the Variant Human be the new Default Human, like it always should have been. I'm excited as ever to play a Human, although I wonder how big a bonus a 2nd 1st level feat will be when everyone already has one, versus getting a first one was when nobody did.
For Dragonborn, I'd have preferred to see the Fizban's Treasury breath-weapon rules. On average, the damage for the new attack scales slightly better and more consistently, but having it take a whole Action versus just replacing an Attack is a big nerf overall. I'm also really confused why this race needed to be changed again after it just got updated in a book last year.
Dwarf changes are mostly great, although I'd argue that the Forge Wise ability should just give us the choice of ANY Artisan's Tools, not just the short list provided. For the life of me I can't figure out why Brewer's tools were removed from the list, but the more I thought about it, the more I think that the race specifically made by the god of creation should just delight in making all things and working with all manner of tools. Let the players choose the flavors of handiwork our dwarves can specialize in.
The Gnome, Halfling and Orc are all great and I love them, and I'm especially looking forward to playing an Orc.
----
Backgrounds: The background rules are great, although as I said earlier I think the implementation of Languages is clunky, and maybe the game would be better off if we just not worry about languages. Everyone getting Feats makes the Human feel slightly less special, but it's probably a good change overall.
----
Feats: Leveled Feats also seem like a good idea, although I'm really interested to see what higher level feats are going to look like, and will some of our powerful favorites from 5e be moving up the list? Alert, Lucky and Magic Initiate seem really strong and are exciting choices. Tough hasn't changed and will still be good. Healer and Musician look interesting and worth exploring. Skilled and Tavern Brawler might be ok, but I'm skeptical. Crafter and Savage Attacker seem like outright traps and clearly need some help.
----
Overall: I'm impressed with the changes. I feel very good about most of them, and overall I already prefer most of these options and definitely this overall approach to character origins to what we had in 5e.
Trying to pretend it's not a new edition and calling it 1D&D is going to work out as well as when they tried calling 5e 'D&D Next', people are going to call it a new edition regardless.
I understand why they are removing half-races for players, but does this mean things like Orogs, Ogrillons, Half-dragons don't exist as separate things either? It's not exactly backwards compatible but not unmanageable.
Humans and Tieflings can be Small now, but not Dwarves? Might as well let there be short Elves too. Standardizing speed to 30 is a good change.
Dragonborn darkvision is good. I agree the dragonborn breath weapon should be part of the attack action, they do want people to use it, right? Wouldn't that make them the dragonborniest dragonborn? (sorry, but they started it)
Ardling looks interesting, I'd rather have Aasimar as a PHB race than a totally new one, although any core race with a flight ability is going to be interesting and maybe need some playtesting.
And why make the gnomish clockwork stuff deteriorate after 8 hours, my music box just falls apart in the pack while we travel? At least let them wind it up each day and make it last 24 hours like it did before. If they are worried about selling it put some limit on that. I'm not sure how this makes the gnomiest gnome (sorry again) when their inventions just fall apart so easily.
I do use languages, and adding sign language is a good inclusion that even has some useful advantages, but they should just make one list and drop the Standard/Rare stuff, it leads to confusing wording in the Background section and getting rid of confusing wording should be more important in a new edition than changing how we roll dice. I would also like to see a Cthonic umbrella language for Abyssal/Infernal like Primordial.
Replacing the background features with feats is great, backgrounds were seldom used and very situational, but some of the 1st level feats are much stronger than others. Would like to see a few more like a fixed Grappler and 2WF (maybe those will be class options), and Lucky or Savage Attacker seem much better than Tavern Brawler letting you shove a giant and attack with a barstool, or getting a few extra skill profs that seem to be less important in these revised rules.
Codifying Tools & Proficiency to give advantage synergy is a good move, although it probably makes some tools much better than others since you'll see a lot more rolls with Thieves' Tools than Cobbler's Tools. But that was still the case before so it's fine.
Spell List stuff looks neat, presumably more will come with class descriptions but it has promise.
Grappled condition changes seem all right, having it affect attack rolls is good for threat control, being able to attack and attempt to escape in the same turn is also welcome, but maybe add the ability to use action to do a skill check instead of the saving throw. That seems like another weakening of skill proficiency although maybe there's good reason for that.
Incapacitated taking away speech, I sometimes used this for really drunk or enthralled/astounded so I am not thrilled with that, would prefer to see something that incapacitates mention it also silences as part of the spell or feature, but I can live with it. The other changes to it are fine.
Inspiration, it's always bothered me that they didn't come up with a better term to separate this from Bardic Insipiration, but we're definitely stuck with it now. Getting it on a 20 and other sources, and losing it on long rest should make it more of a thing I suppose, it got overlooked most of the time in my experience. Maybe it should also have more options like actually allowing a reroll or being used against an attacker, since that is another way it gets used when it sees actual play.
Unarmed Strikes, will need to test some of the changes, especially the grapple stuff. Previously it didn't see much use outside of monks or maybe some creatures that have a decent damaging strike, but the changes could make it more interesting.
Two things that I didn't see that I wanted them to actually fix:
Death Saves and Instant Death rule - It seems like removing monster crits was intended to reduce low level player death, but maybe getting rid of the rule that negative damage beyond max HP is the real problem there, since I've only ever seen that kill very low level characters. The other unaddressed problem is the death yo-yo where it's better to let someone go to 0hp and use healing to revive them than to keep them from going to 0hp. I don't know the best solution, or the best way to discourage that, but I would have appreciated something to test there. And maybe Death Saves should go back to CON saves so modifier and proficiency make a difference, especially if there's something like exhaustion for failing a death save while unconscious. Again I would have much rather seen them try to fix this with rules changes than mess with crits or d20 checks.
Long Rest STILL has this very confusing wording around whether spellcasting interrupts it. If it's 1 hour of spellcasting, nobody does that outside of ceremony, find familiar, and a few very situational spells ... but if spellcasting doesn't interrupt the rest, can you just use some spell slots for long lasting buffs a few minutes before the rest ends and get the slots back immediately? I don't think they have ever sufficiently answered this and here was another chance to clear things up and it's still just up to the DM to make a judgement call.
At least they did add the part where Long Rest interrupted after at least an hour counts as Short Rest, I always played it that way but it's good to make it official.
All generalizations are false.
The mention of gaining an additional language, in between Character Origin Overview and Character Races, is very easy to miss if you're scrolling quickly through the document. I would suggest condensing this into either Race or Background, rather than being some anomalous third column. (Fourth column if you include Class.)
I still feel like ability bonuses should be race-based instead of background-based (or at least both). It just adds much more to the flavor of the particular race and helps paint a picture of their strengths and weaknesses and their commonplace role within a campaign setting. You can always change it, but I'm very disappointed WoTC is trying to be so inclusive to the point that character races are now generic and bland. Provide some more typical background information on the races with their inherent strengths/weaknesses so players actually feel like there's a rich differentiation of culture and inherent skills. The "...of many worlds" content is a good start, but it's insufficient.
I really feel like this "be whatever you want" direction is hollowing out some of the intricacies and depth of the setting and play experience. The sourcebooks have always been a guide for DMs/Players, not an autocratic hard rule. I don't think there's a need to explicitly remove all of the flavor and variation of the races for the implicit house rules that have always been a part of D&D. Give us big, dumb strong orcs and wily, wise gnomes as typecasts/stereotypes and let DMs/Players decide if they want to break convention. There's absolutely nothing wrong in allowing a dexterous, intelligent orc as a PC, but making all races just have different abilities/feats doesn't seem the same or give players the edginess of going against the grain (because there is no grain any longer).
Similarly, I'm anxious to see what they do with Alignment. Players want to be heroes (or anti-heroes) fighting against evil orcs and goblins for the most part. The new multiverse monster approach seems lackluster and unnecessary. I'd like to maybe see it play a bigger role in character creation and development - maybe feats based on particular alignments for instance.
Regardless, I hope that OneD&D brings us all a new direction that is flexible, loyal, classic, modern, sustainable and fun all in one. If it's done right, it can last for generations. Fingers crossed...
This playtest is a lie. They directly calls out the significance, success and commitment to staying with the current edition and not starting a new edition, than immediately turn around and test a new edition which is absolutely not cross compatible with the existing gameplay. Without going over it point by point, I'd discard most of it. Even the compatible stuff like Ardlings seems tacky, they should just expand Aasimar to have different heritages which feature some of these traits. Ardling sounds like a cheap counter creation rather than a unique race, it at least needs a better name.
First overall positive impressions:
Negative Impressions:
All other feedback I had will have to wait to see how they handle other mechanics and classes.
My current campaign has Orcs and other Greenskins as an oppressed people forced out of there home lands by the evil Etreshan Empire, a mix of the "good" races of DnD who believe in racial purity (no half races) and the "greenskin" is only good as a slave, sport or dead.
My players love it, the shades of grey in this new world they came into. The idea that yes this orc tribe is causing issues, but, look at what they have lived through for these many many years.
If a Player Character can be any alignment then, in world, every member of that race is also capable of being any alignment. The idea that a race must be evil and the player character is an outlier might work in some stories, but I have never applied it to any of my roleplaying systems in the almost 25 years I have been DMIng.
in terms of flavour, these rules will never have the prose and story that they actual PHB will, I have no doubt that the various subraces will be talked about and suggested as roleplaying ideas, but mechanically why does a mountain and hill dwarf need to be different, there isn't enough variation in there way of life to explain that away.
My biggest issue with Inspiration is that players already have so many ways to create advantage to anything other then a saving throw, you can support another player for an ability or skill check, you can get flanking, the help action, or a myriad other ways in combat. Sometimes DM's just hand it out for a roll because it makes sense. This additional way of getting advantage means that it becomes almost pointless to try and make disadvantage a thing other than making them use up an inspiration.
After taking a few days to digest everything, here is my feel on what we have:
Rules Glossary
Arcane Spells - Almost half of the classes use this one spell list. Most of the classes make sense, with the one significant exception of the Bard. Based on its assignment to this Spell List, it would make the most sense that the Bard’s Role within a party will somewhat change in D&D One. That’s not necessarily bad, but it will place more of a premium on players who are taking classes with access to the more support oriented spell lists. If addressed well within the Bard class UA, then this isn’t an issue … but I am concerned that relegating the Bard to the Arcane Spell class makes them less of a support character … which is kind of their whole thing.
D20 Test - First of all, the name is underwhelming. “Test of Fate” or something like that has a little more punch, but I get that clarity is probably more important than style.
It does make a lot of sense to make the rules uniform for when we roll dice. So that’s good. Because of what follows with Natural 1s and Natural 20s, the second paragraph needs to be fleshed out so that newer players and DMs understand how important it is NOT to allow a roll if they decide that declared action will always succeed or will always fail. Perhaps a few samples of times that a DM would not allow for a roll. Here’s some suggested language:
“The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and nor greater than 30. The DM should be careful not to call for d20 Test unless there is a chance for either success or failure. The DM should not call for a d20 Test, if for instance:
With language like this, it becomes clear for newer DMs that if you're not OK with an auto-pass or auto-fail, do not call for a d20 roll … then the change is fine.
Critical Hits - I do not like this change. First, if players can crit, monsters should be able to crit. Making combat encounters less dangerous for players is not going to be helpful in balancing already published materials. Also, taking away critical hits from spells involving attack rolls and sneak attack is in my opinion a mistake. I get that critical hit swings can be large … but that’s one of the significant flavors of combat. Tables roar when somebody gets a critical hit on a big attack roll. Taking that away may add more predictability, but at the cost of flavor and danger. This is the only change in the UA that I feel needs to be abandoned.
Divine Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Grappled - I think these changes are fine.
Inspiration - I love these changes. Making inspiration more influential and giving an incentive to use it is all good. I get that this was supposed to make up perhaps to some extent trying to compensate for the nerf to critical hits, but I don't think the buff here added to critical hits as written in 5e would significantly impact gameplay. Keep this and lose the nerfs to critical hits.
Primal Spells - Aside from concerns for the Bard Class previously mentioned, this looks fine.
Slowed Condition - I very much like the language here. I think it should add language something like this part of the slow spell - “A creature so affected can’t use Reactions. On its turn, it can use either an Action or a bonus Action, not both.”
Tool Proficiency - I like this change, but feel like there’s an issue for how this would negate expertise as written. Perhaps have tool use be called by a different term (maybe competence?) and then having competence with tools grant advantage on checks with the tool and relying on the proficiency bonus from the skill would allow expertise to still function as intended? Also making the character roll the check with disadvantage if they do not have competence with the tool? I think this one needs a little work. But conceptually allowing proficiency and tool competency stack is a good idea.
Unarmed Strikes - This is all good. Yay for Monks!
Character Races
Generally speaking I love the vast majority of changes to the races listed. Having a counterpoint to Tieflings is good. I'm not sure I love the varying animal appearance, but otherwise the mechanics for Ardling all look good. I really love that we can now choose the ability score that we use for race-determined spells. I’m only going to mention two things I would like to change:
Dragonborn - The Dragonborn race remains mechanically underwhelming. I would suggest three changes:
Children of Different Humanoid Kinds - I like including Orc, getting rid of Half-Orc and Half-Elf, and saying all humanoids can create half-kin by mating with other races. So that’s all good. However, I think “Then determine which of those Race options provides your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits” is a waste of potential flexibility. I would suggest:
“Next, determine which of those Race options provides your size and speed. Then pick two Special Traits from each of the two races that influence your lineage. You cannot take more than one of any of the following special traits: Versatile, Celestial Legacy, Draconic Ancestry (incorporating Breath Weapon as mentioned above), Dwarven Toughness, Elven Lineage, Gnomish Lineage, Luck, Adrenaline Rush, and Fiendish Legacy. Also, you cannot take more than one special trait that grants damage resistance.”
Character Backgrounds
All of it is very good. This is how it should be. I very much hope that suggested personality traits related to sample backgrounds are still included in the player’s handbook somewhere. Also, I really hope some version of the Heroic Chronicle is in the Player’s Handbook.
Feats
Conceptually I love adding in feats as part of backgrounds and that they are limiting feats at certain levels. I only have two feat-specific notes:
Im all for trying to make Inspiration more popular, but Id like to see it explored in new ways beyond just advantage. For example, I think it could be fun if Inspiration had a narrative influence, where a player could expend a point of inspiration to make additions/changes to narrative elements usually reserved for the DM (within reason), things that play with the ideas of coincidence or fate. Turn inspiration into a "Yes, and..." moment for the player. This way, good roleplay can be rewarded with stronger influence over the story rather than just another tool for rolling dice. I think the Star Wars RPGs have a similar mechanic.
Granted, this sort of change to inspiration could become a nightmare if not properly fleshed out with examples, as I could foresee a player thinking they can flat out cancel anything the DM says in the narrative using it.
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I agree with some of what you have put here.
First of all, not a disagreement but Jeremy Crawford said that the new Spell lists where additions to and not replacements of the spell lists as we know them, my take on this is that you treat them as they are, a list of spells that Wizards (of the coast, not, pointy hat variety). can use to allocate the non standard magic users to instead of having to provide lists of spells they can take that then need updating every time there is a release. instead you have 3 additional lists that spells get added to in the future. So Bards, Wizards etc will not be picking from the arcane list, they will have there own very special lists to go from.
Crits, this has gone back and forth, I respect you don't like the change, I do, I do feel that monsters need a buff of some description to account now for the lack of a spike hit. I have run a bunch of encounters bot with players and on my own and the general sense is that the rules work, the rogue didn't feel overly nerfed by it and took advantage of the extra inspiration they got to carve a sneak attack from a situation they would not have got one previously.
Advantage. Has got seriously out of had now, the new inspiration rules combined with the myriad ways a character can get advantage through the game mean that disadvantage will more than likely rarely be a thing at the table. I like the new inspiration rules, I like it as a replacement for no weapon double damage, but, some of the other means of getting advantage need to be taken away. It used to be getting advantage was a special thing that made a player feel excited or lucky, now, if a player hasn't worked out a way to get advantage on a roll it is a rare occasion.
Half races I agree something different needs to be done, I have created a couple now and they just felt a bit flat, especially trying to explain why the character has all the traits of one race and none of the other.
Dragonborn, if we are going to be told DnD 5e is backwards conpatable, and release a book that overhauls Dragonborn can we at least not take some influence from the cool aspects of the book lol.
Now that you've said it, I do remember him saying that in the video... so that's probably not a concern then.
That's all fair. I get what they're going for. I just like the swings as they are. Features that add variety to combat are generally speaking good in my opinion. It's all a balance for sure, but I think where the balance is currently is better than what they're suggesting. I'm not in a fit of rage over it, but it's definitely the change I like the least.
There definitely is a lot of advantage for tactically minded players ... but I kind of like that.
Yeah I feel pretty strongly about doing something different with half races. It just seems like such a waste to say they're mechanically indistinct from one of their lineages, and totally unlike the other. It seems completely counter-intuitive. Dragonborn definitely need some work. There is a reason it has morphed over the course of 5e so far.
First I need to start with NO Jeremy did not say that we wouldn't be getting rid of class spell lists he specifically said the exact opposite at the 46:20 second mark he says "People will have to wait for upcoming Unearthed Arcanas to see how CLASSES use those spell lists, because classes ARE going to use those lists, but classes are also going to have access to spells that go beyond those universal lists." confirming that classes WILL use these spell lists, but maybe not in their entirety and not ONLY these spell lists. For example, bard is not likely to have access to the whole arcane spell list and will also likely have access to a few spells outside the arcane spell list, but bard WILL likely reference the arcane spell list, and maybe even other spell lists.
Love the new changed but some are not good or we just info on the reasoning.
Races:
The first thing I noticed is that races don't give any stat increase anymore, while this gives a lot of room in role-playing and the ability to choose a race without thinking about stats it also makes races a bit less special to be honest and have an idea that a lot would always take a race to at least have darkvision so they never really have to worry about light.
Also not sure if it is right to give humans Inspiration after a long rest and I don't see why they would get it anyway?
The new races like Orc and Ardling looks fun and looking forward to test them further.
Backgrounds:
I'm in love with the fact you gain a feat at level 1 as feats are just fun and gives a character more freedom in choosing what he or she wants.
Have to get used to the fact you only gain ability scores from your background now and while it gives a lot of freedom in making your character I still think races should provide +1 in what fits with the race.
Feats:
Crafter, crafting was always meh in this game and wonder if in new edition it gets better else as a feat it seems underwhelming.
The discount: Whenever you buy an nonmagical item, you receive aa 20 percent discount on it. The way it is written you would even get 20% of a beer you buy at the inn, which doesn't fit with the theme of the feat, so would reword it differently.
Skilled: I think it should not be repeatable as it is really powerful.
D20 test:
Rolling a 1 is an automatic fail, not sure if I like this especially if a person is proficient in the ability and it always felt weird someone with a rolling a 1 but add +6 would fail while a person rolling a 2 and have +1 could succeed.
For the same reason I don't like an automatic succeed with a 20 as you sometimes set a high number as it is almost impossible and only someone who is really proficient would be able to pull it off. For same reason like the first one it would feel weird when someone rolls 18 and have +6 would fail the task while the other who is not good in that skill get a 20 and succeed.
Critical Hit: Like many I feel that this is what makes combat fun and the fact that neither DM nor casters can now critical hit it feels really bad and would like to know the reasoning behind it.
I can imagine if spells are handled differently in that it would give some effect at rolling a 20 then it is fine but if it means casters who roll a 20 on their hit and get nothing then this is just bad and unrewarding.I personally also will miss critting myself as DM as that could also result in some unexpected developments during combat, but can see that if you do a special attack it could instantly kill a party member.
Grappled condition:
What is the DC for ending a grapple? Never really know how to rule this is it something like 8 + proficiency + dex or str?
Inspiration:
Love the way it works and will use it directly in my campaign as I simply always forget to award Inspiration and even if I reward it chances are very high the player forgets to use it, think with this change people use it more and get used to it and don't forget they have it.
Spells:
With 3 main spell lists you have for example cure wounds listed as divine as well as primal, seems weird to have same spell be on different spell lists, doesn't it make more sense to change the name of the spell then?
Overall love the new stuff and cannot wait to test more of it.
I can't find the feedback survey (I'm guessing it's opening up later, probably some US-Centric time?) so posting some feedback here for now.
Races:
Backgrounds
Feats
D20 Test
Rules Glossary
Spell Lists
I mostly focused my feedback on the D20 tests.
I gave some feedback to the races and background system for origins. Main thing for me was that the half-race mechanics felt lackluster and I feel that Warcaster should be a first level feat for its ability to cast spells while your hands are holding weapons. For example, Paladin is unable to cast some spells like Divine Favor if they go Sword and Board because they have a somatic component but lack a material component.
For d20 Tests, I went all in on how I am against Nat 1/20 auto fail/success, specifically the auto fail on Nat 1's. If someone has a modifier that is high enough to succeed on a Nat 1, they should be allowed to do so. From the years of experience I had running with auto fail/success on nat 1/20 in 5E, rolling a nat 1 and failing when your modifier is higher than the DC just feels miserable. The worst part is that regardless of whether or not this rule makes it into the official release, the people who are for it are unlikely to see a change as they are unlikely to build characters whom can succeed on a Nat 1 while the people that do are going to feel that 5% auto fail and have their experience suffer due to it. So for one side, they have nothing to really gain or lose while the other they have nothing to gain but plenty to lose.
Like there is a reason why this change is so controversial and not uniformly accepted. There are actually a decent number of people who play and enjoy the default rule in 5E for Nat 1/20 where they only affect attack rolls and death saves. At most, auto fail/success should be an optional rule, not the default.
Races:
Backgrounds
Feats
Rules Glossary
D20 Test
Spell Lists
Conditons