UA Discussion: Character Origins

[ZRN]

ThereÂ’s a big thread going on the whole One D&D announcement but discussion of the actual play test content got a bit buried. What are peopleÂ’s thoughts?

My overall impression is that thereÂ’s a lot of filing off rough/complex edges, but in generally good ways. Like, the Lucky feat is still quite good, but working it into the advantage mechanic makes it less weird, rules-wise. And I like the idea of giving everyone a level 1 feat from a restricted list, which helps mechanically define each character quite a bit.

Races are almost uniformly as good or better than their PHB versions, even post-Tasha, with the exception that everyone lost racial weapon/armor proficiencies (and humans have to use the restricted first-level feat list for their bonus feat). But it struck me how much power creep there has been in newer races - for example, the high elf gives up his mostly useless weapon proficiencies to get basically the Fey-Touched feat for free, and IÂ’d say itÂ’s still way worse that, say, shadar-kai or new eladrin. Also, there are potential issues with the mixed-race system in that you could play, say, a halfling/elf who gets the awesome halfling abilities but also qualifies for Elven Accuracy.

Ardlings: why?

The adjusted feats seem mostly good to me. I like that Healer and Tavern Brawler (and the new Musician) are all sort of dummy-proofed in that theyÂ’re not useless for clerics, monks, and bards (respectively). Healer boosts your healing spells, Tavern Brawler boosts unarmed damage AND gives you free pushes with your unarmed hits, and Musician doesnÂ’t interfere with Song of Rest or Bardic Inspiration.

Any thoughts on these or the rule adjustments?

[Schwann145]

I'd say everything I've seen on classes and backgrounds is fine/good.
I'm totally with you on "ardlings: why?" though. "We're not replacing aasimar, we're just... replacing aasimar."
(I will say I'm kinda tired of the focus on unusual and rare species. Players forget all too often that they are, in fact, unusual and rare. I'd rather see more love and emphasis placed on common races to make them more alluring and more insistence that if you play something less common, there will be reactions from the common folk.)

I did notice that the new Alert feat does nothing to make you more... alert. Got an eye-rolly chuckle out of that.

My criticisms are mostly in the other areas, but it wouldn't be fair to critique them based on this teaser alone. I'll wait till more relevant info is shared first.

[GooeyChewie]

My overall impression is actually largely good.

Races: My big issue with a lot of the changes they've made so far in 5e is that they're really designed for what we now know is One D&D and shoehorned into 5e. That issue does not apply to these races, since they are for One D&D. There are a few things I'd like to see changed, particular in that I feel Dragonborn are a big step backwards from Fizban's Dragonborn. But overall, a fairly strong start. EDIT: I don't have any desire to play Ardlings, but I also don't mind them existing if others find them interesting. That said, most of the responses I've seen about them are tepid at best, so I'm not sure many others actually do find them interesting. I wouldn't lose any sleep over them not making the final cut.

Backgrounds: The formatting makes it easy to think the sample backgrounds are set in stone when in reality you are meant to build a background. I'll likely comment on it in my feedback, but I expect the final product would be easier to read. I do miss the flavor of the old 5e backgrounds, but mechanically I think the new rules are better overall. I'm glad to see the ASIs completely divorced from race. If they're going to be floating ASIs, it makes a whole more sense that they stem from what you've done in life than from your race.

Feats: In my mind, these feats have basically replaced whatever feature you would have gotten from your background in 5e. The concept works, but the feats themselves could use a little balancing. Magic Initiate seems like the obvious best choice, with Lucky and Alert also ranking high on everybody's lists. Tavern Brawler is super flavorful, but hard to justify compared to some of the others. If they can get the balance right, I'm on board for the mechanic of having feats for backgrounds. That said, this part (and frankly not just this part) does not square with WotC's repeated claims that the system will be fully 5e compatible. The 5e backgrounds will functionally be eliminated.

Assorted Others: The conversation regarding automatic success/failure for ability checks made me realize I'd rather those be removed from attacks than added to other tests. I'm not sure what to make of the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists; they feel like they are there just to explain how Magic Initiate works rather than to be class spell lists (which we won't find out until a later UA). I'm not really a fan of standardizing the costs of gaming sets, musical instruments, etc.; I suppose it is easier for gameplay but it it breaks immersion that a pair of dice costs the same as a full backgammon set (which would include a pair of dice). Pretty much everything else in the glossary gets a thumbs up from me.


I feel like my opinion is overall way more positive than it would seem from the complaining in the big thread. I suppose that's because it doesn't generate as much discussion to like something as it does to dislike something.

[Millstone85]

I'm totally with you on "ardlings: why?" though. "We're not replacing tieflings, we're just... replacing tieflings."I think you meant "We're not replacing aasimar, we're just... replacing aasimar."

In any case, my reaction to the ardlings has solidified itself as


https://youtu.be/-t91gbiKKNY


I feel Dragonborn are a big step backwards from Fizban's Dragonborn.And just after Fizban finally managed to make me like dragonborn. :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

Races: I'm on board with all of them except Dragonborn, though at least they have darkvision now.
1st-level feats: love the implementation and the ones selected. Crafter is still way too weak though.
Why Ardlings: My guess is they wanted a Tiefling opposite, but determined that Aasimar are not suitable for core. It also gives them a justification to include dozens of oft-requested animal races for the price of one.
Rules changes: Generally on board but the wording needs to be cleaned up.

[Oramac]

I'll agree that my thoughts are largely positive for the Character Origins UA as well. Overall, I like the ideas, though there's a few things I don't like.

Ardlings: Kinda the same as everyone else. Why? Aasimar already were functionally the opposite of tieflings. There's no need for another celestial themed race. I suppose it doesn't hurt anything to keep them in, but I doubt I'd ever play one.

Backgrounds: I'm on the fence here. Adding feats to backgrounds, even "build your own", effectively replaces racial ASIs as the new power-gamer mechanic. Personally, I'd rather see a 1st-level feat added as a standalone bonus during character creation. I.E. "when creating your character, you pick your race, class, background, and starting feat..."

Feats: Speaking of feats, they're mostly better. IMO Lucky is a straight up nerf, though, which I don't like. Also, I really dislike that Tavern Brawler took out the Improvised Weapon language. Sure I can swing a chair now, but what if I want to go all Roadhouse on someone and hit them with a beer bottle? Or a pool queue? Or a pencil? Or a gnome? The Alert feat is a little wonky now too. Not bad, just wonky. Imagine paying a Harengon and taking Alert. I think we can all agree that you effectively get expertise in initiative, but the wording could probably be a little more clear.

Spells: I actually like the addition of Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists. As was said in the hour-long video interview, they're not removing class lists; just giving spells a more definite category. Overall I think this is a good thing, especially for features that tell you to pick a spell from X list.

d20 Test: I like the language to make this all a single definition. I do not like making a nat 20 an auto-success on ability checks. Saving throws I don't care so much, but for checks, I'm not a fan.

Critical Hits: removing spell and monster critical hits (which was intentional per the video) is by far the stupidest thing in the entire UA. Nuff said.

[ZRN]

Feats: Speaking of feats, they're mostly better. IMO Lucky is a straight up nerf, though, which I don't like. .

Lucky now lets rogues sneak attack, which is situationally nice. (And prevents enemies from getting sneak attack, even more situationally.) And you get double the uses at max level!

[Oramac]

Lucky now lets rogues sneak attack, which is situationally nice. (And prevents enemies from getting sneak attack, even more situationally.) And you get double the uses at max level!

That's true, I suppose. But it's already so easy to get advantage/sneak attack otherwise that it just feels.....flat, I guess. /shrug. It's fine. I'll still use it. It just feels much worse to me now.

[Millstone85]

Backgrounds: I'm on the fence here. Adding feats to backgrounds, even "build your own", effectively replaces racial ASIs as the new power-gamer mechanic. Personally, I'd rather see a 1st-level feat added as a standalone bonus during character creation. I.E. "when creating your character, you pick your race, class, background, and starting feat..."What is the difference? You pick a race, a class, a +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to abilities, two skills, one tool, a feat and two languages. They just decided to put some of these under the "build or pick your background" umbrella.

[diplomancer]

Races:

Humans- good, better than before, both more balanced and more interesting
Dwarves- don't like they've taken away the "no speed penalty in heavy armour". Also don't like that they are faster. Eliminating subraces is acceptable
Elves- all acceptable. Not entirely happy about racial spells in general, specially how common they've become. But good balance.
Halflings- Probably my least favourite changes. Don't like the speed increase. Don't like the end of subraces. Don't like that with the "always fail on 1" rule they're the only half-way competent race.
Gnomes- acceptable
Orcs- acceptable
Dragonborn- why? Just why?
Ardlings- should get natural weapons, a choice of whatever is appropriate, 1d6 damage; natural weapons are basically a ribbon, so at least they will feel animalistic. No idea why core.
Tiefling- acceptable, but see Elves.
Half-races- uninspired, not sure if there's a possible solution apart from the traditional one of just making new hybrid races.

Backgrounds- I like weak feats in backgrounds. I dislike everything else,; taking away background specific features and roleplaying cues means backgrounds don't exist anymore. I'm not even reading the suggested backgrounds, because why should I?

Feats: some powerful feats have been nerfed (lucky, alert). A good feat has been very strongly buffed (Magic Initiate). I don't like the new feats, they are too weak. And no, they are not "free" once powerful options are on the table. I think there are more current PHB feats that should be 1st-level feats.

Rules- seems they're getting rid of opposed checks. Many of the changes, specially to grappling and shoving, suggest that. They may also be getting rid of surprise. I don't like the automatic failure rule. I'm OK with the automatic success rule, with the understanding that it's still the DM who calls for a check. I am a bit concerned that the "inspiration on a 20 rule" will encourage players to try to roll too many checks, which will slow down play, even if the DM just says no.

[Oramac]

What is the difference? You pick a race, a class, a +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to abilities, two skills, one tool, a feat and two languages. They just decided to put some of these under the "build or pick your background" umbrella.

Yes, for those of us who pick apart every word. For most people who are going to just look at the backgrounds and say "oh neat, they come with a feat!" or those who don't want to bother creating their own background, it'll lead to "X is better than Y because of Z feat", even if we all know that's not strictly true.

[Psyren]

If Ardlings get a natural weapon I think Tieflings should get one too. If one doesn't then it's probably best if the other doesn't as well.

[tiornys]

Yes, for those of us who pick apart every word. For most people who are going to just look at the backgrounds and say "oh neat, they come with a feat!" or those who don't want to bother creating their own background, it'll lead to "X is better than Y because of Z feat", even if we all know that's not strictly true.
The problem with that is then the same kvetching will be applied to all of the other pieces of the sample backgrounds. They need to make it abundantly clear that the example backgrounds are only examples, and that they can and should be edited freely to match what you want.

[Oramac]

The problem with that is then the same kvetching will be applied to all of the other pieces of the sample backgrounds. They need to make it abundantly clear that the example backgrounds are only examples, and that they can and should be edited freely to match what you want.

Oh I fully agree. I guess my original point should have been stated differently (not unlike a lot of the UA). You said it well. They need to make it very clear that the examples are examples and should be changed. Perhaps in a sidebar or something.

[Pooky the Imp]

I'll repost my thoughts on races from the other thread:



Humans - sure, whatever.


Ardling - what. Why on earth would you include these as a core race? D&D is packed full of races that are either far more known in the genre (e.g. Dhampir, the various anthropomorphic animals etc.), and ones that are more popular with fans (Assimar, Warforged, Changelings etc.). Were so many people interested in playing an Egyptian God lookalike that these were chosen as a core race above all of those?

Anyway, in terms of their actual abilities... ugh. Can we please stop giving races a few spells as their core traits? We've already removed languages and ability modifiers (plus a bunch of other abilities), do we really need every race to be as bland and samey as possible? Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't consider the ability to cast Lesser Restoration 1/day to be a thrilling racial feature (let alone a defining one).

Beyond that, they have resistance to radiant damage (seriously, why not just use Assimar?) and wings they can use a few times per day. All I'll say is that one of the suggested options is a pig-headed Ardling, so you could always go that route and make 'when pigs fly' jokes.


Dragonborn - "Woo, we finally fixed Dragonborn. Now to immediately discard everything we learned and go back to them being terrible."


Dwarves - Seem okay, if a little dull. Though Stonecunning being limited use feels a bit strange. Might have been better off reducing the range and just making it permanent when in contact with stone.


Elves - Oh wonderful, we're back to differentiating subraces with spells. Though, in fairness, they at least get a bit more to go with it (like Drow having 120ft Darkvision and Wood Elves being faster). Elves are probably better off then most but I still badly want this idea to die.

Oh and for some reason Drow no longer have Sunlight Sensitivity. Huh.

Gnomes - Did someone call for more differentiation by spells? I sure hope so because it's what you're getting. And having Forest Gnomes' speak with animals ability reduced to casting the spell X times per day is just depressing.

Also, it might be a strong feature, but Advantage on int, wis and cha saving throws is boring as hell.


Halfling - I think I just contracted narcolepsy by reading this.


Orcs - I guess it's nice to see Powerful Build not being a stand-in for 'supposed to be Large' for once. Seems alright, I guess.


Tiefling - Of, ffs. That's right, kids, it's yet another race that's differentiated by spells!

Yes, I'm aware that the current Tiefling also has this issue. However, it's a problem I'd like to see addressed, not made worse.

Serious question - do other posters here like this sort of thing? I don't know, maybe I should start a separate thread, but it's hard to imagine many people wanting a Tiefling's defining feature to be casting False Life 1/day.

Even if we're going to use spells to save time writing out similar effects, could we not at least tweak them to make them more thematic?

e.g. Living Shadow. Your shadow has a life of its own and can manipulate small objects.
As a Bonus Action, you can cast the Mage Hand spell. Instead of a floating hand, your own shadow moves or stretches as directed, and grasps the shadows of the objects it moves. This ability cannot be used in an area of total darkness (or other location in which no shadows are cast).

This sort of thing would have a similar effect as just giving a character Mage Hand but would be more thematic (so that casters of different races don't end up being basically identical from Lv5 onwards), and also just come across as less lazy.

And this is to say nothing of other traits, unrelated to spells. e.g. let me have a Tiefling with hooves (extra speed or dashing or something) or claws or a prehensile tail.

I'd like something more than Red Tiefling, Blue Tiefling or Green Tiefling. :smallyuk:


Moving on from races, I can't help but think that far too much is now lumped into backgrounds. You've got your ASIs (because heaven forfend that goliaths start with a strength bonus over halflings), *and* your skills, *and* your tool proficiencies, *and* your languages, *and* your equipment, *and* your 1st level feat.

I could understand some of those, but lumping all of them together is just nuts.

And yes, before you ask, I'm well aware that you can choose a custom background . . . but then that removes any purpose in lumping any of these things together because you can just mix and match to your heart's content. Not only that, but they removed the whole 'background' part of backgrounds. Why? Was even Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V too much effort?


Thus far, One D&D has successfully sold me on Pathfinder. :smallwink:

[ZRN]

Anyway, in terms of their actual abilities... ugh. Can we please stop giving races a few spells as their core traits?

I generally dislike this approach as well, but when you look at what the specific races seem to have gained/lost here in the changeover, it seems like a net win. Like, high elves get a couple spells 1x/day and lose... weapon proficiencies that were mostly useless. Wood elves get Pass Without Trace and lose... a weird stealth thing that nobody used and was way worse than Pass Without Trace.

5e is the "spells for everything" edition, might as well embrace it!

[Brookshw]

5e is the "spells for everything" edition, might as well embrace it!

I kinda think of 'traditional D&D' dying a slow death in 3e, someone casting animate dead on it to give us 4e, that monstrosity dying and giving us 'traditional D&D's' nephew/niece in 5e, you can see the family resemblance, but it's definitely its own person.

[Millstone85]

They need to make it abundantly clear that the example backgrounds are only examples, and that they can and should be edited freely to match what you want.I am not sure what more they can do, as they are IMO already being very insistent on this point. First, the UA tells you to either build your background or choose one of the premade/sample ones. Then the UA goes into the Build Your Background rules, which include starting from scratch or customizing. And only then the UA moves to the Sample Backgrounds, immediately reminding you that "These backgrounds were built using the rules in the BYB section".

[Psyren]

Oh and for some reason Drow no longer have Sunlight Sensitivity. Huh.

To be fair, we saw this coming months ago when Kobolds and Duergar lost it in MPMM.



Serious question - do other posters here like this sort of thing?

Yes. Though if it were up to me, I might allow for swapping the spell out for a thematic non-core option somehow.



e.g. Living Shadow. Your shadow has a life of its own and can manipulate small objects.
As a Bonus Action, you can cast the Mage Hand spell. Instead of a floating hand, your own shadow moves or stretches as directed, and grasps the shadows of the objects it moves. This ability cannot be used in an area of total darkness (or other location in which no shadows are cast).

You can already fluff / theme any spell you cast any way you choose per Tasha's (TCoE pg 116), that includes these. If you want your mage hand to look shadowy and creepy, go for it.

The mechanical restriction meanwhile is just unnecessary. If you want to do that, just refrain from using yours in the dark, no need to force that on every other tiefling player.



And yes, before you ask, I'm well aware that you can choose a custom background . . . but then that removes any purpose in lumping any of these things together because you can just mix and match to your heart's content. Not only that, but they removed the whole 'background' part of backgrounds. Why? Was even Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V too much effort?

The background ribbons were frankly baloney. Those are all things that should be doable via ability checks, or just automatically if you're proficient.

[Oramac]

Anyway, in terms of their actual abilities... ugh. Can we please stop giving races a few spells as their core traits?
Even if we're going to use spells to save time writing out similar effects, could we not at least tweak them to make them more thematic?

e.g. Living Shadow. Your shadow has a life of its own and can manipulate small objects.
As a Bonus Action, you can cast the Mage Hand spell. Instead of a floating hand, your own shadow moves or stretches as directed, and grasps the shadows of the objects it moves. This ability cannot be used in an area of total darkness (or other location in which no shadows are cast).

This sort of thing would have a similar effect as just giving a character Mage Hand but would be more thematic (so that casters of different races don't end up being basically identical from Lv5 onwards), and also just come across as less lazy.

Fully agree. I don't mind the spells as traits thing, but it is extremely boring and just not particularly creative. As you said, if it has to happen, at least fluff it up a bit.

[paladinn]

Not to rehash everything from the previous thread; but two things specifically do come to mind.

1. WotC have obviously changed their minds about the use of feats. 5e was designed to have feats as something optional and substantial, supposedly worth sacrificing an ASI to get. Now, right at L1, you're not only getting an "ASI" or sorts, you're getting an intro feat. Makes me wonder if they will be decoupling feats from ASI's going forward.

2. Removing the initial ASI's from race completely and attaching to background just seems a little wrong-headed. At the least they should be split up: two from race and one from background, or vice-versa. I saw an idea to split 3 ways: race, background and class.

Just my $.02

[Schwann145]

I think you meant "We're not replacing aasimar, we're just... replacing aasimar."
No, c'mon, that's crazy. I wouldn't make such a silly and obvious mistake. Just look at my post! See?
What's that? No no, ignore that, "last edited" message. That's for... something else...
😅

[Millstone85]

No, c'mon, that's crazy. I wouldn't make such a silly and obvious mistake. Just look at my post! See?
What's that? No no, ignore that, "last edited" message. That's for... something else...
😅Hahaha, it be like that sometimes. :smallsmile:

[JadedDM]

I don't see anyone else discussing it, but did anyone notice that weird cosmic retcon that suggested humans originated from Sigil, and so did the Common language? That was...bizarre.

[Psyren]

I don't see anyone else discussing it, but did anyone notice that weird cosmic retcon that suggested humans originated from Sigil, and so did the Common language? That was...bizarre.

It's a theory disputed by scholars, no?

[Millstone85]

I don't see anyone else discussing it, but did anyone notice that weird cosmic retcon that suggested humans originated from Sigil, and so did the Common language? That was...bizarre.I am all for giving D&D humans a weird origin story.

Like when 4e Nentir Vale portrayed Asmodeus as an angel who not only led a rebellion against his god but actually succeeded in overthrowing and killing him. And that god? He Who Was, creator of the human race.

Or when Keith Baker, designer of Eberron, was asked why daelkyr look so human and said that the real question was why humans look so daelkyr. He then clarified that was a joke, but many found it the best answer ever.

[JadedDM]

I am all for giving D&D humans a weird origin story.

I mean, it is weird, but also sort of derivative? Isn't that exactly the same origin story as the elves, just replace 'Sigil' with 'Feywild'?

But it mostly just struck me as odd, because in the past Sigil was largely unknown to most Prime races, including humans. The people of the Cage called them 'Clueless.' Sigil is this weird, alien place (to humans; obviously, it's perfectly normal for its inhabitants). So the idea that humans came from there just...strikes me as odd.

It'd be sort of like if it was revealed in Mass Effect that humanity originally came from the Citadel. That we migrated to Earth, apparently forgot about it, and then rediscovered it eons later, now populated by alien races.

[Psyren]

The impression I got is that the theory is there for DMs who want some kind of explanation for why humans are in every setting. If that theory doesn't work for your campaign just toss it out.



It'd be sort of like if it was revealed in Mass Effect that humanity originally came from the Citadel. That we migrated to Earth, apparently forgot about it, and then rediscovered it eons later, now populated by alien races.

I think this analogy would work better if we found out that ME humans were found independently all over the Milky Way. The setting would need some kind of central origin theory then.

[Naanomi]

I don't see anyone else discussing it, but did anyone notice that weird cosmic retcon that suggested humans originated from Sigil, and so did the Common language? That was...bizarre.
Common being a corruption of planar cant has been suggested before in 2e products, though not confirmed

And this would be the... Fourth? Fifth? Human origin story? Though it would be a big timeline adjustment, since Sigil wasn't discovered until significantly after humans had been on the scene

Also... No monster crits? So adamantine armor and Spore Druid capstone is just for PvP?

[JadedDM]

Yes, I realize it can be ignored, it just struck me as incredibly weird, is all.

(Personally, I feel it's completely unnecessary to have an origin story for any race in the Multiverse. If you're okay with the idea that every single human on every single planet in every single plane of existence can speak the same language is fine, then I don't know why there being humans everywhere would bother you.)

[Psyren]

Also... No monster crits? So adamantine armor and Spore Druid capstone is just for PvP?

Grave Cleric got nerfed too. But this hasn't been finalized, so if we don't like it, now is the time to make our voices heard about it.

The two reasons they gave were:

1) Low levels feel too swingy when a goblin crit deletes a new player's wizard (or whatever).
2) Inexperienced or pressured DMs tend to use static/average damage, and getting a crit can turn what should feel like a dramatic moment into a bunch of annoying math.

[Schwann145]

Elves - Oh wonderful, we're back to differentiating subraces with spells. Though, in fairness, they at least get a bit more to go with it (like Drow having 120ft Darkvision and Wood Elves being faster). Elves are probably better off then most but I still badly want this idea to die.

Gnomes - Did someone call for more differentiation by spells? I sure hope so because it's what you're getting. And having Forest Gnomes' speak with animals ability reduced to casting the spell X times per day is just depressing.

Tiefling - Of, ffs. That's right, kids, it's yet another race that's differentiated by spells!

Yes, I'm aware that the current Tiefling also has this issue. However, it's a problem I'd like to see addressed, not made worse.

Serious question - do other posters here like this sort of thing? I don't know, maybe I should start a separate thread, but it's hard to imagine many people wanting a Tiefling's defining feature to be casting False Life 1/day.

You are definitely not alone!
I'm sick to death of how overwhelming spells are in 5e. Everything has them and if there's a problem, the devs solve it by... adding spells!
It's lazy and imbalancing and disrespectful to the idea that you can and should be capable without being a caster of some sort (IMO).

Also, can we talk about a couple things??

Elves: Why do Wood and High elves have inherent magic? Drow have it by being seeped with the magical Faerzress of the Underdark for thousands and thousands of years. Wood and High elves have not been seeped with any kind of environmental magic for thousands and thousands of years... so why in the heck do they have inherent magic?

Darkvision: 2 out of 3 Elven types do not live in lightless places. Dragonborn do not live in lightless places. Orcs do not live in lightless places. Planetouched do not live in lightless places. Forest and Rock Gnomes do not live in lightless places (and Svirfneblin are not included here).
In the included Races, only Drow and Dwarves do.
So why the hell do they keep giving out Darkvision like candy to races who have absolutely no justification in having it?


Grave Cleric got nerfed too. But this hasn't been finalized, so if we don't like it, now is the time to make our voices heard about it.

The two reasons they gave were:

1) Low levels feel too swingy when a goblin crit deletes a new player's wizard (or whatever).
2) Inexperienced or pressured DMs tend to use static/average damage, and getting a crit can turn what should feel like a dramatic moment into a bunch of annoying math.

I recall the primary reasoning being that DM creatures aren't supposed to be uncontrollable swingy, and that an enemy "crit" is actually their legendary actions, which are fully under the control of the DM as to when they are applied.
This leads me to think they're going to pretty seriously expand on which creatures get such actions. We'll see, I suppose.

[Millstone85]

Why do Wood and High elves have inherent magic? Drow have it by being seeped with the magical Faerzress of the Underdark for thousands and thousands of years. Wood and High elves have not been seeped with any kind of environmental magic for thousands and thousands of years... so why in the heck do they have inherent magic?Here is the justification given in the UA:

Elves have the mystical ability to take on characteristics of the environments with which they are bonded—drow to the Underdark, high elves to fey crossings in the Material Plane, and wood elves to forests. These connections grant elves access to certain kinds of magic.So they gave high elves a magically active neighborhood: fey crossings. As for wood elves, they are left with the race's general ability to attune to its environment. And well, if wild nature can empower druids...

Really, the odd thing to me is how elves ended up stuck with the humanoid type and fey ancestry, when goblinoids got to be fey.
Edit: Well, I could have sworn... But no, goblinoids are humanoids with fey ancestry, just like elves.


Darkvision: 2 out of 3 Elven types do not live in lightless places. Dragonborn do not live in lightless places. Orcs do not live in lightless places. Planetouched do not live in lightless places. Forest and Rock Gnomes do not live in lightless places (and Svirfneblin are not included here).
In the included Races, only Drow and Dwarves do.
So why the hell do they keep giving out Darkvision like candy to races who have absolutely no justification in having it?Dragonborn were, well, born of dragons. Yes, this is now their standard backstory. And dragons have darkvision, so there you go. For the others, I don't know.

[JadedDM]

High Elves can use Misty Step once a day at 5th level. I wonder how they'll explain that in the lore. Did they spontaneously develop the ability from somewhere? Or will they just retcon it, and claim High Elves have always been able to do that.

[Pooky the Imp]

You can already fluff / theme any spell you cast any way you choose per Tasha's (TCoE pg 116), that includes these.

Except that the whole point is to represent a specific aspect of the race. When you leave it completely open, Tieflings become indistinguishable from 'people who are wizards/sorcerers/bards/warlocks'.

Just giving Tieflings Mage Hand with no change and no description tells you absolutely nothing about the race, save that being devil-blooded is apparently tied to making a small hand appear in the air.

Meanwhile, the shadow idea I suggested (which was an off-the-top-of-my-head example), actually ties into the themes of the race. Granted, it leans more towards the older versions of Tieflings (which was what I was going for anyway, as I hate the current design), but many tieflings had unusual shadows that moved separately, seemed to be from a different creature, or were absent entirely.

You can still change it if you think that your tiefling would be better represented by a floating hand, but at least it gets across what the ability is supposed to be representing.

Moreover, the idea was not 'Cast Mage Hand but have it look different', rather the idea was 'This feature is somewhat similar to an existing Cantrip, so referring to the spell text and noting changes might be easier than writing out the ability completely'.




Elves: Why do Wood and High elves have inherent magic? Drow have it by being seeped with the magical Faerzress of the Underdark for thousands and thousands of years. Wood and High elves have not been seeped with any kind of environmental magic for thousands and thousands of years... so why in the heck do they have inherent magic?

That's a good point. At a glance, it seems to have been done for entirely gamey reasons (i.e. they removed the central and thematic disadvantage from Drow, so they needed to make the other elves stronger to keep the subraces balanced). Can't say I'm a fan.




Darkvision: 2 out of 3 Elven types do not live in lightless places. Dragonborn do not live in lightless places. Orcs do not live in lightless places. Planetouched do not live in lightless places. Forest and Rock Gnomes do not live in lightless places (and Svirfneblin are not included here).
In the included Races, only Drow and Dwarves do.
So why the hell do they keep giving out Darkvision like candy to races who have absolutely no justification in having it?

I can kinda understand Tieflings having Darkvision because it's a core feature of devils (Personally, I'd prefer being able to choose a couple of traits, based on their physical features - so some tieflings might have catlike eyes that grant darkvision, whilst others have hooves or weird shadows or something else entirely, but that's just me).

You could make a similar argument for Dragonborn having Darkvision because Dragons do, though they didn't have it in 5e and I can never remember the degree to which they're supposed to be related to dragons. I'll leave this one to someone who knows more about their lore. :smalltongue:

Maybe Orcs have Darkvision because they hunt at night? It's about the only explanation I can come up with besides tradition.

Either way, I completely agree that Darkvision is far too common as it stands. To be honest, I think part of the issue was the removal of Low-Light Vision, which gave a middle ground for races that could see better than others in the dark, without being able to see in pitch blackness. Seems like one of the many features of older editions that was removed for no good reason.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You are definitely not alone!
Darkvision: 2 out of 3 Elven types do not live in lightless places. Dragonborn do not live in lightless places. Orcs do not live in lightless places. Planetouched do not live in lightless places. Forest and Rock Gnomes do not live in lightless places (and Svirfneblin are not included here).
Orcs are known to live undeground, and Elves are known for their superior vision and living in dense forests.

[Millstone85]

High Elves can use Misty Step once a day at 5th level. I wonder how they'll explain that in the lore.
I can never remember the degree to which they're supposed to be related to dragons.Like I just said, fey crossings, and literally born of dragons, as of this UA. Well, okay, hatched from dragon eggs.

[paladinn]

Elves have had some innate magic since OD&D. The elf paragon was a fighter/magic-user. In Classic, that was made mandatory btb.

The Misty Step feature, I believe, came from 4e. Eladrin, the 4e equivalent of "high elves", could misty step.

I actually don't mind elves getting a couple cantrips or even Magic Initiate. But of course that's now a background thing :(

[Hael]

One of the things thats not entirely clear to me, is what benchmark we are supposed to compare races to. Is this a brand new paradigm or can we say, compare them to MotM races power wise? B/c if so, not a single one of these new races is comparable.

Like the Shadar Kai or Eladrin are straight upgrades over the elves in this document.

The strongest race is probably the Halfling, but I would say its still relatively below the high end options from MoTM or even some of the new spelljammer races.

[Millstone85]

One of the things thats not entirely clear to me, is what benchmark we are supposed to compare races to. Is this a brand new paradigm or can we say, compare them to MotM races power wise?IIRC, Crawford has said that MotM was already a companion to the future PHB


B/c if so, not a single one of these new races is comparable.

Like the Shadar Kai or Eladrin are straight upgrades over the elves in this document.Yup.

[Dienekes]

So, fiddled with it a bit.

Basic Rules

The divide of magic between Arcane, Divine and Primal spells. I'm currently ambivalent toward. It kinda seems like a way to homogenize the classes, and that's exactly the opposite of what I want in a class based system. But I will need to see how it's implemented before I give an actual concrete opinion on it. That said, I feel the initial problem they had with Magic Initiate as stated in that video they released would have been better served by just saying "Pick a class that gets spells at 1st level, you get one of their 1st level spells blah blah blah" That just seems easier to me.

Consolidating all d20 checks into a single term called d20 check sounds good to me. Making them all crit hit and crit fail does not. There's going to (and already has) cause a lot of argument about what this means. And just conceptually, I don't like it.

Critical Hits getting radically depowered in terms of damage. There's a part of me that thinks it was just written wrong and things like Smites and Sneak Attacks were meant to be added in after the fact. But if it's not the case, it just makes Crits feel weak. Most weapons in the game only deal like 1d8 damage per hit. An increase of 4.5 isn't really anything to write home about. Now that said, I don't think conceptually Paladin's ever should have been the big crit class, but Rogues fit it fine. Barbarian's fit it even better, but even if they make Barbarian's Brutal Critical the only ability that stacks with Crits in the game it will still only be a next to worthless ability.

Monsters removing crits. I conceptually don't like it, but I don't have all the data needed to make a full decision. The argument that you can die to one crit at low levels struck me as odd since... I always figured that's the point. Level 1 should be deadly and terrifying and one mistake should cost you. If that's not the case anymore... ok. That just means level one doesn't have an actual terrifying survival element so now it's just become like every other level but you have less stuff to play with. So just even less engaging than it was before.

I also feel like they could have just increased PC health.

But, the video also brought up the idea that monsters don't need crits because they have the recharge mechanic. And this statement becomes either a ridiculous and blatant lie or very interesting depending on how monsters are updated. Now, I doubt they're going to make every Orc have a recharge mechanic. That would just slow down the game a lot. But if we also get special Orc Leaders and Orc Champions or whatever that have recharge mechanics with suggestions on how they should be layered into most Orc encounters. That could be an interesting way to go.

Again, can't really comment without more data.

The new grappling/unarmed rules. I need to play with them more, but it feels like a nerf thus far. Forcing a creature to give up an action to try and get free is a very nice penalty. Having it either happen or not at the end of your turn is less good. Now it does happen at the end of a turn, so we've got a full turn of being unable to move. But, it's weird to me how it's now structured. Grapplig already placed a penalty on most attackers because they have no means of getting in reach. But in truth, the characters you actually want to pin down and make unable to do things are the casters. Pretty much always. So it's odd that they've doubled down on penalizing attacks.

Making grappling and shoving an attack roll I guess I see where it's coming from. On the one hand I truly believe that one of the benefits of keeping everything on a strict Prof Bonus + Ability Score basis is that you can do neat abilities that throw skill vs save vs attack and they're all at kinda the same base level. So removing one of the major means that a skill can be used in combat feels disappointing. But on the other hand, the whole idea rides on d20 tests being equal, so no Expertise. And I ultimately prefer having Expertise work (Actually my preferred is just having all Prof Bonus scale more than +6 but that's probably not going to happen).

Inspiration. Having Inspiration being the Humans thing, sounds alright. The rest of the stuff associated with it? Nah, I don't really like it. It's too easy to just ask for skill checks. Even if the DM is saying no appropriately, the game will still be slowed down.

Maybe I'd find it more acceptable if there was a rider that it needed to be at some point of deep pressure. Like, the Persuasion check that is needed to convince the king to switch sides. Or an attack made in a period of actual combat. Fine. But that same Persuasion check used to try and get a better deal at the marketplace? No. No Inspiration for that.

Interrupting Rests: Interesting. I will have to play with it more.

Tools. So Tools are skill checks now. Having the Tool Proficiency just gives advantage. Ok. That's something. Makes a lot of sense for Performance, though I can't help but feel it penalizes singers. And this is starting to get a lot of Advantage just getting passed around really easy so far. What's the skill going to be associated with Thieves Tools? Is it going to be Slight of Hand? What about any of the Artisan's Tools? Is there a Craft skill? Wouldn't you need to really fill out what a Craft skill even does to do that? How would that affect the Artificer? Serious question. I have no idea how the Artificer works, that will be relevant later in this overall text.


Races

Starting with Humans, there is no more Variant Human. Or, I guess more accurately, all Humans are Variant Humans. This works for me, I've never actually seen anyone play a base Human.

I'll be honest, I don't like a lot of where WotC has gone with races. I think everyone getting their ASI bonuses just anywhere makes races less interesting conceptually, though I can see the mechanical benefits for our current system. Every race having their Speed standardized at 30 also feels kinda lame. I like making players work around their limitations, that's what makes them limitations. So now Humans can be Small, which is good actually. But all it means is that the character isn't going to focus on Massive Weapons. So... I don't know, feels empty. Say what you want about 3.5 being overly technical (in a lot of ways it was), but I liked the ways being small gave you some benefits and some penalties that felt right.

Anyway, not going deeper into that.

Humans have a bonus feat, a skill, and a new ability based on the Inspiration mechanic. If this was the only time that Inspiration was really prevalent I think this would be a great addition. But it's not.

Ardlings, uhh, yeah. I don't care about them. I actually quite like Aasimar. The angel on their shoulder, that sense that they had a purpose to exist that they could either embrace or rebel against. That potential to fall. That's all awesome stuff built into a race. I wish they did way more of that kind of thing in the game. But they aren't in the UA. We now have Ardlings. Radiant Damage resistance is a ribbon. Their Flight mechanic is interesting enough for lower levels. Kinda think it would have been neat to make their ability to fly actually develop along with their levels. But, ok. Then they get spells. I don't really see much a theme with their spell lists in particular. They all get some kind of healing. Zone of Truth at least makes sense for the lawful one. But other than that, the choices appear about random. Maybe I'm not giving this race a fair shake because I've always been just ambivalent toward animal-people.

Dragonborn. I can understand why their breath weapon was made into an Action. Having it be an attack favored martials a bit, and Fighters a lot. And as this game has developed they really seem to be trying to not favor specific classes with races. That said, if it's to be an Action then it needs to be worth an Action. This breath weapon is not.

Dwarves, my favorite race! Alright, back in the lore Moradin gave his children a blessing that surpassed the limitations of his own plane and spread out among the multiverse. He gave them knowledge of stone, and thus they had Stonecunning. They could see stone and just know about it. That's gone. Replaced with Tremorsense that happens to be named Stonecunning. Now, I'm not actually opposed to that change. And 60 feet is a lot. Doesn't give you sight though, which is a little sad. Wanted to bring this out against invisible opponents to smash their faces in. Dwarven Toughness works, it's one of the more boring means of showing a dwarf is tough, but it definitely works. And I like Forgewise. It's alright, I wish they weren't slowed with loads and armor and I would've played up their steadfast nature a bit more. But, it's not the worst dwarf I've seen.

Elves, so now we're establishing a pattern of what makes up a balanced race. Cantrip, 1st level spell at 3, 2rd level spell at 5. Plus a ribbon or two. But I kinda think elves are better than Ardlings so far. A 30 foot high jump is alright, but I'd rather have Charm defense than Radiant Damage Resistance. Darkvision, and proficiency in the most commonly used skill, trance, and actually having their cantrip section be a bit better than just a cantrip is all pretty far ahead of the angel's mad hops.

As an aside Wood Elves speed increase make them the best at wearing heavy armor they aren't strong enough for. Which both feels wrong, and man, don't take the dwarves' stuff.

Gnome, pretty sure Gnomish Cunning is the best racial ability shown thus far. But that's about it for the base race. Forest Gnomes get speak with animals, which is nice. I like that change. Rock Gnomes now get to just make toys that do prestidigitation which wins the award for most interesting racial ability in the UA. That just sounds fun. Probably not as strong as some of the higher level spells that other races can cast, but hey magic toys!

Halflings. With the auto-fail on 1 rule in place and adhered to in the most strict terms Halflings become a godsend. Other than that looks like they're all Lightfoot's now. Which is a little sad, not that I think Stouts were a particularly good implementation of it. But they more gave off the idea of the simple, happy, plump Hobbit more than Lightfoots which I've always liked.

Orcs, on the one hand yeah, Orcs in the PHB. Well past time. Goblins should be here with them. On the other, this is an Orc with no aggressive traits. Adrenaline Rush gives them higher effective HP than dwarves, and the bloodthirsty rage of Gruumsh that was central to their being has been replaced with might and determination. But since Powerful Build is largely a ribbon, it's really just tough. Disappointing, but, it's what we knew they would be. No point getting slowed down by a battle already lost.

Tieflings, a retcon I like. The whole all Tieflings are now spawns of Asmodeus thing so they're all sexy horned people was dull and I'm glad it's gone. Alright you've seen Elves and Ardlings, you know how this goes. I'm getting a better sense of what the subraces are supposed to represent than I did with Ardlings, but Wood and High elves still have the most narratively consistent spell lists, and Drow just have what Drow've always had.

Half-Races. Half-Races are now entirely fluff. I think that's boring. But I can understand that answering why only certain races could breed with each other wasn't where WotC wanted to spend their time, and making actual rules for how to make mechanical half-races would force a level of homogenization on the races that they may have wanted to avoid. It's fine. Don't really plan on using this at all myself. But, whatever.

Backgrounds.

I have already made my opinion known about where I think the starting ASIs should be, so just moseying on past that bit.

Other than that, the feat is a good idea. I approve it. Noticing a dearth of the fun roleplaying features, like Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws. Or really any feature like a sailor getting able to bum a ride or a folk hero embraced by the commoners. I actually really liked those. Hope they come back.

Feats

As to the feats, the formatting is much better, kudos. I'm not going to go through all of them. Just a few that stood out to me.

Alert: Neat. I like it.

Crafter: Alright I have 0 interest in the Artificer, I have in fact, never even looked at the class. Is this good for Artificers and that's why it's designed that way? Because I looked over it wondering if my dwarf fighter who was a craftsman would take it as a meaningful fluff pick and I'm leaning on a heavy "No."

Healer: Eh, this does not scale well. Why not just let them spend Hit Dice as if this was an actual Short Rest instead of just limiting it to one? Or maybe half as many as they could have, whatever. But, this doesn't look all that great to me.

Musician: Gets objectively worse the more Humans you have in the party. And is what I mean when I say I think putting more weight on Inspiration is ok, but they did too much with it.

Savage Attacker: This is the Level 1 Martial Feat, much like Magic Initiate is The Level 1 Caster Feat. It stinks. Give us Battle Master maneuvers or something. This is boring.

Tavern Brawler: WotC why do you keep trying to make rerolling damage dice a thing? Did one of your designers come up with it back when making 5e and fall in love? It's never that good. Of both the original and this one, I'd much rather have the +1 to an important ability score and grapple on a Bonus Action than a 5 foot push for free. Unless I have some way of procing Booming Blade with my bare fist or something.

And that's it.

[Luccan]

Everything new about Crits I'm against.

I don't get Ardlings. They aren't removing Aasimar, so why are Aasimar not the default option? It's a very specific flavor that on reflection I don't think is wrong, per se, but just doesn't make sense in the context of "5e update, not a new edition" that they're pushing.

I don't like the changes to spell lists, so far at least, but that's partly because I have no idea how spellcasting classes are going to work going forward

I hate making backgrounds a huge mechanical thing. You can add in free floating ASIs and feats at level 1 without changing a largely RP choice into a mechanical power building choice.

I am mostly ambivalent on most of the rest of it, but then I think 5e is mostly fine so I don't think I was gonna be super into it anyway

[Millstone85]

So Tools are skill checks now. Having the Tool Proficiency just gives advantage.I think you misread. The UA is just using Xanathar's rules.

Let's say you are proficient with a skill and a tool. Depending on the DM considering the skill, the tool, or both, to be relevant to an ability check, you might:

make an ability (skill) check with proficiency.
make an ability (tool) check with proficiency.
make an ability (skill+tool) check with proficiency and advantage.

[Psyren]

Like the Shadar Kai or Eladrin are straight upgrades over the elves in this document.


I don't agree with this. Yes a Shadar-Kai's teleport is strong, but you can't solve every problem with a teleport, and the High Elf gets one of its own anyway. It also gets Detect Magic and a floating cantrip, which can be more useful in a lot of situations, including social and exploration ones.


I think you misread. The UA is just using Xanathar's rules.

Let's say you are proficient with a skill and a tool. Depending on the DM considering the skill, the tool, or both, to be relevant to an ability check, you might:

make an ability (skill) check with proficiency.
make an ability (tool) check with proficiency.
make an ability (skill+tool) check with proficiency and advantage.


Indeed.

Before this+XGtE, a tool proficiency was just another way to get your proficiency bonus added to an ability check.

Now, it's a free source of advantage if you can argue for both a tool and a skill applying to a check.

[Dienekes]

I think you misread. The UA is just using Xanathar's rules.

Let's say you are proficient with a skill and a tool. Depending on the DM considering the skill, the tool, or both, to be relevant to an ability check, you might:

make an ability (skill) check with proficiency.
make an ability (tool) check with proficiency.
make an ability (skill+tool) check with proficiency and advantage.


Ahh thank you. Never used the rule myself. Advantage is already pretty easy to get.

[animewatcha]

They listened to happenings of double proficiency bonus (non-expertise). Now for there to be UA for triple proficiency (non-expertise) from a vocal minority that will be catered too.

[Schwann145]

Orcs are known to live undeground, and Elves are known for their superior vision and living in dense forests.

Elven superior vision (and hearing, and smell, etc) is already represented with the free Perception proficiency.

[MisterD]

So now Divine Smite, Eldrich Smite, Sneak attack do not crit or do we wait for class UA to see how they are treated?

[Luccan]

Elf Darkvision (in 5e) makes sense when you consider two things:

1. What Darkvision is in 5e used to be two separate things and elves only got the low-light part. But since both those things are now covered by Darkvision (and only Darkvision) Elves get Darkvision

2. Elves only "sleep" four hours a day on average, so they're operating at least partially when it's dark out anyway

[Dienekes]

So now Divine Smite, Eldrich Smite, Sneak attack do not crit or do we wait for class UA to see how they are treated?

As of now, they do not crit.

This may change in future UA.

[Schwann145]

I also feel like they could have just increased PC health.

Please God no? Everything already has way too many HP in this game. There's almost no sense of danger as is.

[Dienekes]

Please God no? Everything already has way too many HP in this game. There's almost no sense of danger as is.

I get that, but their goal was specifically to decrease danger at level 1.

It's a goal I disagree with, but I'd rather everyone have 5 more HP at level 1 than remove crits from monsters from levels 1 to 20.

[Psyren]

They listened to happenings of double proficiency bonus (non-expertise). Now for there to be UA for triple proficiency (non-expertise) from a vocal minority that will be catered too.

?
I'm not seeing any "double-proficiency" in this UA.


Elven superior vision (and hearing, and smell, etc) is already represented with the free Perception proficiency.

Yep.



I don't get Ardlings. They aren't removing Aasimar, so why are Aasimar not the default option?

I can only guess, but I see it as a combination of:

1) Not visually distinct enough from humans (every core race more or less has a unique silhouette.)
2) Aasimar racials are a smidge too much for core (full flight, outdamage every other race).
3) They're satisfying a demand for multiple animal-themed race requests in one go.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well we've finally got the second half of Tasha's Customising Your Origin rules, I might actually be tempted to use them now.

I am going to have to strong agree with the opinion on Ardlings, WotC already tried to replace Aasimar with 4e's Deva, and they didn't last the edition change. Plus 5e Aasimar are a cooler race because they're centered around abilities that aren't spells. On the other hand I think they could work as a new Chaotic Planes player race, I've honestly forgotten what the old version was called. Would could even include a race of organic cyborgs as their Lawful counterpart.

Most of the changes to backgrounds are them getting the ability score boosts and a Feat instead of the notFeats they got before. I like the latter, and post-Tasha's the former really doesn't change anything. I've not fully looked through the Feats yet, but the few I did looked good.

So yeah, mostly just an improvement over the post-Tasha's game, but can we please just get Aasimar in core?

[Zevox]

It's a mixed bag. There's things I like (level 1 feats, new Human stats, Dwarves get tremorsense), things I don't (Dragonborn sucking again, all of the changes to crits, free inspiration on every natural 20), and things that just confuse me (the new Ardlings in the PHB instead of just using Aasimar? Grapple/shove as attack rolls instead of skill checks?). It's not bad necessarily, but I think the big problem is, at least from what we see so far, there's nothing exciting for me here. No big reason for me to want to start using this new version of the core rules over the existing ones. Relatively little has changed, and what has is a mixed enough bag that it would be much easier for me to just take the things that I do like and apply them to the existing rules.

Maybe future information about things like the classes will give me a reason to want to use 5.5 instead of 5.0, but as it stands, yeah, I'm much more likely to just cherry-pick the parts I think are good and leave the rest. Which actually would mean I probably wouldn't even buy the new PHB, just use the SRD to grab whatever few things I do want.

[Leon]

IIRC, Crawford has said that MotM was already a companion to the future PHB

"Companion" isn't core, companion is a extra variable that might be allowed in any given game.

[animewatcha]

?
I'm not seeing any "double-proficiency" in this UA.



Skill proficiency + tool proficiency within same thing resulting in prof. bonus + advantage. It's why I had the () of non-expertise. 'In the past' outside of specific wordiness of whatever feature, 2 proficiencies in the same skill (by whatever means) was redundant.

[Psyren]

Skill proficiency + tool proficiency within same thing resulting in prof. bonus + advantage. It's why I had the () of non-expertise. 'In the past' outside of specific wordiness of whatever feature, 2 proficiencies in the same skill (by whatever means) was redundant.

That's not double-proficiency though, you still only get proficiency once. The only change is the advantage, which is easy to get anyway (Help action), and this rule has been around since Xanathar's it's just core now.


"Companion" isn't core, companion is a extra variable that might be allowed in any given game.

It's still reasonable to compare them to the MotM races especially since Orc was lifted over from there wholesale with no changes.

[Phhase]

I'll ape your take if you don't mind.

So, fiddled with it a bit.

Of the base rules:

The divide of magic between Arcane, Divine and Primal spells. I'm currently ambivalent toward. It kinda seems like a way to homogenize the classes, and that's exactly the opposite of what I want in a class based system. But I will need to see how it's implemented before I give an actual concrete opinion on it. That said, I feel the initial problem they had with Magic Initiate as stated in that video they released would have been better served by just saying "Pick a class that gets spells at 1st level, you get one of their 1st level spells blah blah blah" That just seems easier to me.

Yeah, I don't think adding this new, additional distinction on top of already existing spell lists and schools of magic is going to add anything of particular use that wouldn't be more intuitive as it is already. Unless they're proposing to remove one or more of those other subsystems, which I would not like to see.


Consolidating all d20 checks into a single term called d20 check sounds good to me. Making them all crit hit and crit fail does not. There's going to (and already has) cause a lot of argument about what this means. And just conceptually, I don't like it.

Critical Hits getting radically depowered in terms of damage. There's a part of me that thinks it was just written wrong and things like Smites and Sneak Attacks were meant to be added in after the fact. But if it's not the case, it just makes Crits feel weak. Most weapons in the game only deal like 1d8 damage per hit. An increase of 4.5 isn't really anything to write home about. Now that said, I don't think conceptually Paladin's ever should have been the big crit class, but Rogues fit it fine. Barbarian's fit it even better, but even if they make Barbarian's Brutal Critical the only ability that stacks with Crits in the game it will still only be a next to worthless ability.

Monsters removing crits. I conceptually don't like it, but I don't have all the data needed to make a full decision. The argument that you can die to one crit at low levels struck me as odd since... I always figured that's the point. Level 1 should be deadly and terrifying and one mistake should cost you. If that's not the case anymore... ok. That just means level one doesn't have an actual terrifying survival element so now it's just become like every other level but you have less stuff to play with. So just even less engaging than it was before.

I also feel like they could have just increased PC health.

But, the video also brought up the idea that monsters don't need crits because they have the recharge mechanic. And this statement becomes either a ridiculous and blatant lie or very interesting depending on how monsters are updated. Now, I doubt they're going to make every Orc have a recharge mechanic. That would just slow down the game a lot. But if we also get special Orc Leaders and Orc Champions or whatever that have recharge mechanics with suggestions on how they should be layered into most Orc encounters. That could be an interesting way to go.

Again, can't really comment without more data.

...I don't believe they're gonna just remove all damage dice being doubled. What happened to critical hits being, well, critical? Yeah, I really don't like that, it cuts out high and low points that make for a more exciting game. I feel a lot of folk might be a little more irritated about the "automatic success and fail" clause than perhaps need be. From my perspective, I've always run it that way, but with the incredibly important corollary that you can only critically succeed or fail to the extent it is possible for a character to do so in that moment. You can't suplex the moon out of the sky just because I let you "try" (another important limiting factor that was rightly brought up) and you rolled a 20.


The new grappling/unarmed rules. I need to play with them more, but it feels like a nerf thus far. Forcing a creature to give up an action to try and get free is a very nice penalty. Having it either happen or not at the end of your turn is less good. Now it does happen at the end of a turn, so we've got a full turn of being unable to move. But, it's weird to me how it's now structured. Grapplig already placed a penalty on most attackers because they have no means of getting in reach. But in truth, the characters you actually want to pin down and make unable to do things are the casters. Pretty much always. So it's odd that they've doubled down on penalizing attacks.

Making grappling and shoving an attack roll I guess I see where it's coming from. On the one hand I truly believe that one of the benefits of keeping everything on a strict Prof Bonus + Ability Score basis is that you can do neat abilities that throw skill vs save vs attack and they're all at kinda the same base level. So removing one of the major means that a skill can be used in combat feels disappointing. But on the other hand, the whole idea rides on d20 tests being equal, so no Expertise. And I ultimately prefer having Expertise work (Actually my preferred is just having all Prof Bonus scale more than +6 but that's probably not going to happen).

Yeah, it's nice they tried to (sort-of?) buff grappling by making it a soft taunt, but the drawbacks are not really worth it in my opinion. And it no longer being a skill check is also disappointing. God forbid trying to introduce some martial/caster parity by letting grappling interact with somatic components though, yeesh what a missed opportunity.


Inspiration. Having Inspiration being the Humans thing, sounds alright. The rest of the stuff associated with it? Nah, I don't really like it. It's too easy to just ask for skill checks. Even if the DM is saying no appropriately, the game will still be slowed down.

Maybe I'd find it more acceptable if there was a rider that it needed to be at some point of deep pressure. Like, the Persuasion check that is needed to convince the king to switch sides. Or an attack made in a period of actual combat. Fine. But that same Persuasion check used to try and get a better deal at the marketplace? No. No Inspiration for that.

I think what they're trying to do is to force you to use inspiration more because you'll be getting it more. And since it doesn't stack, you'll want to use it so you can get it again. But it does make it feel less...special. Which is kinda off.


Interrupting Rests: Interesting. I will have to play with it more.

Personally, I'm uncertain about this. I feel there's a distinct possibility for it to be obnoxious. But. I may be wrong. We'll see.


Tools. So Tools are skill checks now. Having the Tool Proficiency just gives advantage. Ok. That's something. Makes a lot of sense for Performance, though I can't help but feel it penalizes singers. And this is starting to get a lot of Advantage just getting passed around really easy so far. What's the skill going to be associated with Thieves Tools? Is it going to be Slight of Hand? What about any of the Artisan's Tools? Is there a Craft skill? Wouldn't you need to really fill out what a Craft skill even does to do that? How would that affect the Artificer? Serious question. I have no idea how the Artificer works, that will be relevant later in this overall text.


I don't like this. I feel tool checks and proficiencies are severely undersung in 5e. I really like how it's a check which uses a contextually dependent ability score. But yolking each tool to a skill and just making proficiency mean advantage feels like unnecessary paring-back to fit some fantasy of an ever-lighter system. It was perfectly fine, and even made sense as it is.


Starting with Humans, there is no more Variant Human. Or, I guess more accurately, all Humans are Variant Humans. This works for me, I've never actually seen anyone play a base Human.

Yeah, no particular complaints. At the moment.


I'll be honest, I don't like a lot of where WotC has gone with races. I think everyone getting their ASI bonuses just anywhere makes races less interesting conceptually, though I can see the mechanical benefits for our current system. Every race having their Speed standardized at 30 also feels kinda lame. I like making players work around their limitations, that's what makes them limitations. So now Humans can be Small, which is good actually. But all it means is that the character isn't going to focus on Massive Weapons. So... I don't know, feels empty. Say what you want about 3.5 being overly technical (in a lot of ways it was), but I liked the ways being small gave you some benefits and some penalties that felt right.

Agreed. Things are getting increasingly homogeneous. And yeah, I really do like interesting limitations. They're fun to build around. I've always wanted to make a Locathah that wears a reverse diving suit they fill with water to stay moisturized, and has to keep it filled with saltwater when damage makes it leak.


Humans have a bonus feat, a skill, and a new ability based on the Inspiration mechanic. If this was the only time that Inspiration was really prevalent I think this would be a great addition. But it's not.

Ardlings, uhh, yeah. I don't about them. I actually quite like Aasimar. The angel on their shoulder, that sense that they had a purpose to exist that they could either embrace or rebel against. That potential to fall. That's all awesome stuff built into a race. I wish they did way more of that kind of thing in the game. But they aren't. We now have Ardlings. Radiant Damage resistance is a ribbon. Their Flight mechanic is interesting enough for lower levels. Kinda think it would have been neat to make their ability to fly actually develop along with their levels. But, ok. Then they get spells. I don't really see much a theme with their spell lists in particular. They all get some kind of healing. Zone of Truth at least makes sense for the lawful one. But other than that, the choices appear about random. Maybe I'm not giving this race a fair shake because I've always been just ambivalent toward animal-people.

The less said about Ardling, the better. As the perfect inverse to Teifling, I fail to see what makes Aasmair unsuitable for core.


Dragonborn. I can understand why their breath weapon was made into an Action. Having it be an attack favored martials a bit, and Fighters a lot. And as this game has developed they really seem to be trying to not favor specific classes with races. That said, if it's to be an Action then it needs to be worth an Action. This breath weapon is not.

Yes...is it so bad to give martials something nice, though? They need it. I feel Fizban's was better. And this version certainly isn't worth a full action.


Dwarves, my favorite race! Alright, back in the lore Moradin gave his children a blessing that surpassed the limitations of his own plane and spread out among the multiverse. He gave them knowledge of stone, and thus they had Stonecunning. They could see stone and just know about it. That's gone. Replaced with Tremorsense that happens to be named Stonecunning. Now, I'm not actually opposed to that change. And 60 feet is a lot. Doesn't give you sight though, which is a little sad. Wanted to bring this out against invisible opponents to smash their faces in. Dwarven Toughness works, it's one of the more boring means of showing a dwarf is tough, but it definitely works. And I like Forgewise. It's alright, I wish they weren't slowed with loads and armor and I would've played up their steadfast nature a bit more. But, it's not the worst dwarf I've seen.

Elves, so now we're establishing a pattern of what makes up a balanced race. Cantrip, 1st level spell at 3, 2rd level spell at 5. Plus a ribbon or two. But I kinda think elves are better than Ardlings so far. A 30 foot high jump is alright, but I'd rather have Charm defense than Radiant Damage Resistance. Darkvision, and proficiency in the most commonly used skill, trance, and actually having their cantrip section be a bit better than just a cantrip is all pretty far ahead of the angel's mad hops.

As an aside Wood Elves speed increase make them the best at wearing heavy armor they aren't strong enough for. Which both feels wrong, and man, don't take the dwarves' stuff.

Dwarves with Tremorsense? I....I guess. It's not what I'd expect but yeah, it works. As for elves, I'm sad to see the more interesting features like the lightly obscured camouflage one be discarded in favor of...more spells. Homogeneity. Yay.


Gnome, pretty sure Gnomish Cunning is the best racial ability shown thus far. But that's about it for the base race. Forest Gnomes get speak with animals, which is nice. I like that change. Rock Gnomes now get to just make toys that do prestidigitation which wins the award for most interesting racial ability in the UA. That just sounds fun. Probably not as strong as some of the higher level spells that other races can cast, but hey magic toys!

Gnomes have the most interesting and creative features in the whole document, and that's a bit sad. Good for them, but a pity.


Halflings. With the auto-fail on 1 rule in place and adhered to in the most strict terms Halflings become a godsend. Other than that looks like they're all Lightfoot's now. Which is a little sad, not that I think Stouts were a particularly good implementation of it. But they more gave off the idea of the simple, happy, plump Hobbit more than Lightfoots which I've always liked.

All roads lead to gnome, I guess.


Orcs, on the one hand yeah, Orcs in the PHB. Well past time. Goblins should be here with them. On the other, this is an Orc with no aggressive traits. Adrenaline Rush gives them higher effective HP than dwarves, and the bloodthirsty rage of Gruumsh that was central to their being has been replaced with might and determination. But since Powerful Build is largely a ribbon, it's really just tough. Disappointing, but, it's what we knew they would be. No point getting slowed down by a battle already lost.

I guess it's meant to fill the hole that half-orc left.


Tieflings, a retcon I like. The whole all Tieflings are now spawns of Asmodeus thing so they're all sexy horned people was dull and I'm glad it's gone. Alright you've seen Elves and Ardlings, you know how this goes. I'm getting a better sense of what the subraces are supposed to represent than I did with Ardlings, but Wood and High elves still have the most narratively consistent spell lists, and Drow just have what Drow've always had.

Teiflings, they're okay. This'll do just fine, I've few complaints either.


Half-Races. Half-Races are now entirely fluff. I think that's boring. But I can understand that answering why only certain races could breed with each other wasn't where WotC wanted to spend their time, and making actual rules for how to make mechanical half-races would force a level of homogenization on the races that they may have wanted to avoid. It's fine. Don't really plan on using this at all myself. But, whatever.

Custom lineage was better than this. This is silly.


Alert: Neat. I like it.

I like that there's a new way to get proficiency in initiative on any character. I dislike that pretty much everything else was gutted wholesale. We'll see where it ends up on the scale I guess.


Crafter: Alright I have 0 interest in the Artificer, I have in fact, never even looked at the class. Is this good for Artificers and that's why it's designed that way? Because I looked over it wondering if my dwarf fighter who was a craftsman would take it as a meaningful fluff pick and I'm leaning on a heavy "No."

As an inveterate crafter and Artificer, I'd like to present an alternative look at this. I'd totally take this on a crafter. But only in principle. Because looking at this, it makes me wonder what other design decisions they made that inform this feat. Are the better crafting and commerce rules now? If so, I'd absolutely take it. If such things are still largely in the purview of DM discretion, then I think it'd be less useful.


Healer: Eh, this does not scale well. Why not just let them spend Hit Dice as if this was an actual Short Rest instead of just limiting it to one? Or maybe half as many as they could have, whatever. But, this doesn't look all that great to me.

Counterpoint: it gets people to use hit dice more, it has some small magical synergy, and importantly, it doesn't have the per-rest cooldown per person. I think it'll be more useful in a pinch, considering short rests are underused anyway. That said, it does contribute to making them even more obsolete, which I do dislike.


Musician: Gets objectively worse the more Humans you have in the party. And is what I mean when I say I think putting more weight on Inspiration is ok, but they did too much with it.

Humans get an inspiration per long rest, right? So I'd think that as long as everyone's making sure to use their inspirations, it'd still be a good, maybe even great combo.


Savage Attacker: This is the Level 1 Martial Feat, much like Magic Initiate is The Level 1 Caster Feat. It stinks. Give us Battle Master maneuvers or something. This is boring.

Hard agree. Mechanically, it's fine. I'd likely never pick it, though.


Tavern Brawler: WotC why do you keep trying to make rerolling damage dice a thing? Did one of your designers come up with it back when making 5e and fall in love? It's never that good. Of both the original and this one, I'd much rather have the +1 to an important ability score and grapple on a Bonus Action than a 5 foot push for free. Unless I have some way of procing Booming Blade with my bare fist or something.

It's an easy way to add power without risking unbalancing things. It's also unbearably boring, by this point. Also, important note: Tavern brawler now gives you proficiency only in furniture rather than in all improvised weapons. Why?? The improvised weapon system was fine, what's with the sudden unnecessary specificity?


Final note: I'm sad about the lack of special features for backgrounds. Sure, they were mostly ribbons. But ribbons are pretty, and don't you want things to be pretty? And besides, every once in a while it was nice for them to come in clutch. It's cool to be able to traverse the city, be a wanted criminal, have connections, have a noble family, etc. Let us have interesting, niche features.

[Schwann145]

You can't suplex the moon out of the sky just because I let you "try" (another important limiting factor that was rightly brought up) and you rolled a 20.

I'm kinda sad that, when arguing this point, people always want to go for the obviously impossible rather than the situationally impossible.
Of course no one is suplexing the moon out of the sky.

Instead, consider lifting the very heavy portcullis:
DM sets the DC at 25.
The 20 Str Level 4 Fighter with Athletics Prof and Str Save prof has a 15% chance to hit that DC.
The 8 Str Level 4 Wizard who has no Athletics Prof or Str Save prof has a 5% chance to hit that DC.
Once upon a time, that check was impossible for the Wizard, and rightly so. Now this character, that's never done any exercise a day in their life, can suddenly do this incredible heavy lifting? And a difference of 10% between the character that should be able to do it vs shouldn't be able to do it is not at all a large mathematical difference.

It utterly shatters suspension of disbelief.

[Phhase]

I'm kinda sad that, when arguing this point, people always want to go for the obviously impossible rather than the situationally impossible.
Of course no one is suplexing the moon out of the sky.

Instead, consider lifting the very heavy portcullis:
DM sets the DC at 25.
The 20 Str Level 4 Fighter with Athletics Prof and Str Save prof has a 15% chance to hit that DC.
The 8 Str Level 4 Wizard who has no Athletics Prof or Str Save prof has a 5% chance to hit that DC.
Once upon a time, that check was impossible for the Wizard, and rightly so. Now this character, that's never done any exercise a day in their life, can suddenly do this incredible heavy lifting? And a difference of 10% between the character that should be able to do it vs shouldn't be able to do it is not at all a large mathematical difference.

It utterly shatters suspension of disbelief.

Fair, point stands though.

[Psyren]

I'll ape your take if you don't mind.

Yeah, I don't think adding this new, additional distinction on top of already existing spell lists and schools of magic is going to add anything of particular use that wouldn't be more intuitive as it is already. Unless they're proposing to remove one or more of those other subsystems, which I would not like to see.

If I had to guess, they're doing it so that they have "general lists" (Arcane/Divine/Primal) and "class-specific lists." Stuff that lets you" borrow other people's magic will now only go to the general list. No more Magic Initiate: Eldritch Blast (notice it's not on any of the lists) and no more Magical Secrets: Druid Grove/Simulacrum.



Yeah, it's nice they tried to (sort-of?) buff grappling by making it a soft taunt, but the drawbacks are not really worth it in my opinion. And it no longer being a skill check is also disappointing.

As currently written it's a buff to monk, since Martial Arts means they can grapple/shove with Dex now. Monk might undergo some changes but that's how it stands for the moment.


Yes...is it so bad to give martials something nice, though? They need it. I feel Fizban's was better. And this version certainly isn't worth a full action.

Agreed.


Dwarves with Tremorsense? I....I guess. It's not what I'd expect but yeah, it works. As for elves, I'm sad to see the more interesting features like the lightly obscured camouflage one be discarded in favor of...more spells. Homogeneity. Yay.

Fun fact: during the 5e playtest (DnD Next), everyone could attempt to hide while lightly obscured. I'd much rather have that back. Fingers crossed that's why they nuked this.



Final note: I'm sad about the lack of special features for backgrounds. Sure, they were mostly ribbons. But ribbons are pretty, and don't you want things to be pretty? And besides, every once in a while it was nice for them to come in clutch. It's cool to be able to traverse the city, be a wanted criminal, have connections, have a noble family, etc. Let us have interesting, niche features.

Yes, those things are cool. Why then are they tied to backgrounds? Those should be things anyone can do via their backstory and maybe some ability checks. You want to tell me that my rogue can never have connections if I didn't start the game with any???

[ZRN]

The new grapple has some interesting uses. It doesn’t require the Attack action so you use it as an opportunity attack, meaning you can finally block an enemy from waltzing right past you without a taking a feat or using a readied action. It doesn’t waste an enemy action, but on the other hand they’re stuck in place for at least one turn - meaning if they do break free you can probably grab them with another opportunity attack the next turn. And it gets rid of the weird situation where high-level rogues and/or bards make the best grapplers thanks to their skill-boosting abilities (expertise, reliable talent, etc).

It also makes swarms of goblins, etc. a lot scarier if you don’t want to be surrounded by them.

[Xervous]

Would people rank these changes as being favorable, neutral, or unfavorable for players? Same question for GMs.

[ZRN]

Would people rank these changes as being favorable, neutral, or unfavorable for players? Same question for GMs.

Favorable for players - they get a new free feat at first level, and better balance among the adjusted classes and feats. Crits on ability checks and saves are fun, and I like the new unarmed strike/grapple/shove rules.

Probably neutral to favorable for DMs - no monster crits means you can use tougher monsters without worrying about one-shotting PCs, and you can use the new grapple to bog down players in scary ways, forcing them to pay more attention to positioning, which IMO makes for a more fun tactical experience for the DM.

[Damon_Tor]

Ardlings: why?

"Winged fursonas" is a specific fetish. Someone on the dev team is having a giggle.

[Pooky the Imp]

Would people rank these changes as being favorable, neutral, or unfavorable for players? Same question for GMs.

I'd put the changes as being unfavourable on both fronts.

As a DM, it's not too bad, just more things I have to house rule to not be awful.

As a player, more of the liquid-sick from Tashas has been poured on top of everything I liked. The free feat is nice, I guess, but that had long been a house rule of my group anyway. I suppose it's nice for it to be enshrined officially but it doesn't remotely make up for the races being boring and samey, backgrounds being pointless, flavourless mulch, and feats being tiresome at best.

[Millstone85]

"Winged fursonas" is a specific fetish. Someone on the dev team is having a giggle.That's... Well... I mean... I am playing a yuan-ti divine soul who worships couatls and will be really happy with the 14th-level feature. So, erm, I will see myself out.

My winged scaly will fly better, though. :smallyuk:

[Dienekes]

Would people rank these changes as being favorable, neutral, or unfavorable for players? Same question for GMs.

Very favorable to players. Feats at level 1, ASIs you can put anywhere you want, Advantage handed out like candy on Halloween. Less deadly at low levels.

There are some negatives, critical hits will just kinda feel worse for the big crit classes. You can crit fail checks you should have passed. But that really only effects Rogues and the super high level classes. I think overall Grappling is technically nerfed, but I also think it has been made in line with how other attack actions so it will be easier to understand for new players. Not that the old way was all that difficult, at least not when compared to 3.5's ridiculousness. But a streamlining of mechanics more or less by definition makes things easier on the reading comprehension level.

For a DM? It's a wash. Less swingy combat may be seen as an improvement or a penalty depending on your style of DM. The game now incentives asking for pointless rolls, whether that will actually happen depends on your players. If your players are the kind who actually read and try to optimize themselves based on these rules, then yeah, this could slow the game down.

But any real statement on how this effects DMs will really have to wait until we get some more information on the DM side of things. Which has been promised, as the DMG will be getting an update. But, we don't really have it yet. So we can only comment on the barebones.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's... Well... I mean... I am playing a yuan-ti divine soul who worships couatls and will be really happy with the 14th-level feature. So, erm, I will see myself out.

My winged scaly will fly better, though. :smallyuk:

Nobody's saying it's not desired, just that it's probably not widely desired. Especially as 5e Aasimar have a few elements that might be more desirable (a non-class based super mode, the angelic guide, the implied technicolour skin), and even the Ardling's coolest thing of bonus action flight is arguably beaten by the Aasimar having minute long flight as an option.

Honestly, I think ideally we'd have both Aasimar and a beast headed race in the PhB. Give the beast folk a racial Feat that grants BA flight and let th nab one of their racial feats at 1st level.

Although as your character shows there's also an appeal to having to grow into your concept. So I see no reason not to have another way to play winged animalfolk.


Also interesting to see upper planes=wings. I guess wheels of fire or multiple eyes wasn't something they wanted in the PhB.

[Millstone85]

Also interesting to see upper planes=wings. I guess wheels of fire or multiple eyes wasn't something they wanted in the PhB.Sometimes, those also have wings. :smallwink:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgYLyPMWsAMc8tr.png

But also, the three highest ranks of biblical angels would go really well with the three celestial legacies.

https://i.imgur.com/pklrpLR.jpeg
The thrones, or ophanim (singular: ophan), could be said to be forged out of heavenly metals mined in Arcadia, Celestia and Bytopia, and to meet up with modrons as their march passes through these planes.

The cherubim (singular: cherub) are not little cupids but multi-headed guardinals, carefully watching over the idyllic planes of Bytopia, Elysium and the Beastlands.

The seraphim (singular: seraph) could be interpreted as everchanging beings that overall appear as storms of feathers and eyes, as befits the exalted planes of the Beastlands, Arborea and Ysgard.

If ardlings borrowed traits from each of those, that would be awesome!

Edit, that is:

Heavenly ardlings could have a metallic "blindfold" that actually gives them seven eyes around the head.
Idyllic ardlings could keep the current animal look.
Exalted ardlings could have a blurry aura, and sprout multiple wings when using their flying option.

[Doug Lampert]

Elves have had some innate magic since OD&D. The elf paragon was a fighter/magic-user. In Classic, that was made mandatory btb.

The Misty Step feature, I believe, came from 4e. Eladrin, the 4e equivalent of "high elves", could misty step.

I actually don't mind elves getting a couple cantrips or even Magic Initiate. But of course that's now a background thing :(

Elves have no magic in OD&D, nor is there any way for them to be a fighter/magic-user in that game.

Basic IS NOT OD&D. Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures were the original game.

[Millstone85]

Basic IS NOT OD&D. Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures were the original game.Today I learned that D&D almost got sued by M&M's.

[paladinn]

Elves have no magic in OD&D, nor is there any way for them to be a fighter/magic-user in that game.

Basic IS NOT OD&D. Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures were the original game.

So you don't consider the supplements to be OD&D? I think most long-time grognards would disagree with you.

And yes, I am very familiar with Classic/Basic D&D

[Anonymouswizard]

Sometimes, those also have wings. :smallwink:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgYLyPMWsAMc8tr.png

But also, the three highest ranks of biblical angels would go really well with the three celestial legacies.

https://i.imgur.com/pklrpLR.jpeg
The thrones, or ophanim (singular: ophan), could be said to be forged out of heavenly metals mined in Arcadia, Celestia and Bytopia, and to meet up with modrons as their march passes through these planes.

The cherubim (singular: cherub) are not little cupids but multi-headed guardinals, carefully watching over the idyllic planes of Bytopia, Elysium and the Beastlands.

The seraphim (singular: seraph) could be interpreted as everchanging beings that overall appear as storms of feathers and eyes, as befits the exalted planes of the Beastlands, Arborea and Ysgard.

If ardlings borrowed traits from each of those, that would be awesome!

Edit, that is:

Heavenly ardlings could have a metallic "blindfold" that actually gives them seven eyes around the head.
Idyllic ardlings could keep the current animal look.
Exalted ardlings could have a blurry aura, and sprout multiple wings when using their flying option.


Okay, you e convinced me, that would be cool. Maybe not for every setting, but certainly a very cool way to do a celestial PC race.

Although I do want to see some biomechanical cyborgs as an option as well, let Law and Chaos get in on the PC races instead of just subclasses. But I had an idea for some Clockware rules (mostly as a way to make things like missing limbs less of a burden in low magic games) earlier today, I'll probably add such a race in there myself.


Elves have no magic in OD&D, nor is there any way for them to be a fighter/magic-user in that game.

Basic IS NOT OD&D. Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures were the original game.

I thought that OD&D elves could pick between Fighting-men and Magic-users at the start of the day, am I getting confused with a retroclone?

But yeah, elves as Fighters/Magic Users was a BD&D invention and I believe actually debuted after AD&D. In the human-focused early days of D&D it wasn't a bad thing to go archetypal with the races, even if I personally prefer the Warrior-elf from the Hollow World box. These days I'm torn on elves having innate magic, I think I'd much rather just state they have a tendency to pick magical classes and subclasses.

[Psyren]

Nobody's saying it's not desired, just that it's probably not widely desired. Especially as 5e Aasimar have a few elements that might be more desirable (a non-class based super mode, the angelic guide, the implied technicolour skin), and even the Ardling's coolest thing of bonus action flight is arguably beaten by the Aasimar having minute long flight as an option.

Ardling flight is indeed beaten by Aasimar flight, but that's not necessarily a good thing when you're talking about a core race.


So you don't consider the supplements to be OD&D? I think most long-time grognards would disagree with you.

And yes, I am very familiar with Classic/Basic D&D

OD&D was 1974-1976, Basic and AD&D were 1977+. 2e showed up roughly around 1989.

Wikipedia has a decent publication history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks)

[Anonymouswizard]

Ardling flight is indeed beaten by Aasimar flight, but that's not necessarily a good thing when you're talking about a core race.

Oh sure, and I'm definitely not the target audience for Ardlings, because Aasimar are my favourite race. It's just disappointing that the new premier celestial race is less interesting, while also limiting the potential of getting a proper Beastfolk race later on.

Plus Ardlings are a bit more focused towards casters, whereas Aasimar had more martial leanings. Sure their transformations also boosted speels, but they feel intended for weapon attacks as two are very melee friendly. As 5e already feels very caster focused it's disappointing to me. Maybe they'll use that to differentiate the two in a supplement, the designers' attempts at a 'standard' lore seem to change with every book.

[Psyren]

If ardlings borrowed traits from each of those, that would be awesome!

Edit, that is:

Heavenly ardlings could have a metallic "blindfold" that actually gives them seven eyes around the head.
Idyllic ardlings could keep the current animal look.
Exalted ardlings could have a blurry aura, and sprout multiple wings when using their flying option.


The issue here is that now you're saying if people want to be an animal-themed Ardling, they must choose Idyllic. Not only does this flat-out ignore the existence of animal-themed celestials from the other two planes (e.g. Hound Archons are not from Elysium), it's not a problem that can be fixed with the half-breed rules since you can't be an Ardling-Ardling half-breed as they're the same race.

Whereas - if you want to be a non-animal Ardling currently, that's easy right now, just be a half-breed with Ardling stats and take humanoid head from somewhere else. You can even be an Aasimar-Ardling if your DM is allowing non-core races, and get closer to the cosmetics described here.


Oh sure, and I'm definitely not the target audience for Ardlings, because Aasimar are my favourite race. It's just disappointing that the new premier celestial race is less interesting, while also limiting the potential of getting a proper Beastfolk race later on.

Plus Ardlings are a bit more focused towards casters, whereas Aasimar had more martial leanings. Sure their transformations also boosted speels, but they feel intended for weapon attacks as two are very melee friendly. As 5e already feels very caster focused it's disappointing to me. Maybe they'll use that to differentiate the two in a supplement, the designers' attempts at a 'standard' lore seem to change with every book.

I'd say bonus-action movement, Divine Favor and the healing spells are pretty useful for martials too honestly, though I understand your point. Aasimar are definitely more combat-oriented in theme - much like angels are.

[Millstone85]

The issue here is that now you're saying if people want to be an animal-themed Ardling, they must choose Idyllic. Not only does this flat-out ignore the existence of animal-themed celestials from the other two planes (e.g. Hound Archons are not from Elysium), it's not a problem that can be fixed with the half-breed rules since you can't be an Ardling-Ardling half-breed as they're the same race.Fair enough. Also, the half-breed rules really need to be changed so you can play things like a half-drow wood elf. Unless everyone is like dragonborn where the child randomly matches one parent or the other.

[Psyren]

Hmm... rereading the sidebar, it doesn't specifically say the two race options you pick to blend have to be different races. They just have to both be race options, which Elf x Elf are.

You'd still have to pick one parent's Lineage though.

[KittenMagician]

much like everyone else here i feel a big fat MEH to the ardlings. aasimar were definitely already the opposite of tieflings.

my main gripe with this thus far is the the new way of doing half races.

i just know there are gonna be buttheads that want the mechanical features of one race and the 100% appearance of another. this honestly makes race feel completely pointless. pick the mechanics options you want and then have any appearance you want. be 100% orc in appearance but have the mechanic features of a halfling. there is nothing in your backstory or anything about having a halfling parent. this can be done to turn any race into a furry or make any furry race not furry. also it only works with humanoids so any race that counts as something else like fey or fiend or celestial cant be used in this fashion.

i actually like the idea of hybrid races i just feel like some people out there are gonna ruin it for everyone else.

[Psyren]

I don't really get the furry hate. Is it 2006 or something?

And halfling mechanics include Size, so if your Orc picks that parent you'll still be short (though perhaps on the tall end of short.)

[Xervous]

I don't really get the furry hate. Is it 2006 or something?


To me it’s coming across as a dislike of the blandest excuse for mechanics pasted atop a lack of lore or inspiration for how the races fit into the world. My problem with oddball races in general has always been the questions of how they fit into the world, consequences of adding them to the world, and whether or not they fit the theme. Without sufficient context and inspiration there’s little to make generic furry creature #6833 more interesting and useful than any one page concept doodle + annotations sourced off the internet at random.

Give me a compelling tabaxi empire we can all share an understanding of, and then knowingly subvert its tropes when we get bored of the default.

[Pooky the Imp]

I don't really get the furry hate. Is it 2006 or something?

I think it's less hate for Furries and more hate for what seems like an extremely half-arsed attempt to pander to them.



My problem with oddball races in general has always been the questions of how they fit into the world, consequences of adding them to the world, and whether or not they fit the theme. Without sufficient context and inspiration there’s little to make generic furry creature #6833 more interesting and useful than any one page concept doodle + annotations sourced off the internet at random.

Give me a compelling tabaxi empire we can all share an understanding of, and then knowingly subvert its tropes when we get bored of the default.

Just to say, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I want races to feel like they belong in the world. The more races you add, the harder this gets without them treading on one another's toes.

I'd say it's also something of an issue with the concept of anthropomorphs. In Furry Fantasy, you're usually looking at an entire world of anthropomorphs. On the one hand, this results in a lot of races (/species), but also removes all the others. So you don't need to worry about humans or elves or dwarves or orcs or halflings or gnomes or anything else. So, as long as you don't go too overboard with animals, you can probably balance it out well enough.

However, with a race like Ardling, you've got a massive headache. Either you treat every animal as being its own subspecies (so you have a town of Bear-Ardlings, a town of Pig-Ardlings, a town of Dog-Ardlings etc.), thus adding in a ton of anthropomorph races without taking anything out, or else you lump all Ardlings together and create a society that just looks like an absolute mess.

[Psyren]

The more races you add, the harder this gets without them treading on one another's toes.

They added 1 core race and swapped in another. That's hardly a floodgate.


To me it’s coming across as a dislike of the blandest excuse for mechanics pasted atop a lack of lore or inspiration for how the races fit into the world. My problem with oddball races in general has always been the questions of how they fit into the world, consequences of adding them to the world, and whether or not they fit the theme. Without sufficient context and inspiration there’s little to make generic furry creature #6833 more interesting and useful than any one page concept doodle + annotations sourced off the internet at random.

Give me a compelling tabaxi empire we can all share an understanding of, and then knowingly subvert its tropes when we get bored of the default.



However, with a race like Ardling, you've got a massive headache. Either you treat every animal as being its own subspecies (so you have a town of Bear-Ardlings, a town of Pig-Ardlings, a town of Dog-Ardlings etc.), thus adding in a ton of anthropomorph races without taking anything out, or else you lump all Ardlings together and create a society that just looks like an absolute mess.

Ardlings fit into any printed setting that Tieflings do. Why do they need a "town" or "empire" at all? Are there towns and empires of Tieflings?

Faerun for example literally calls Tieflings "A Race Without A Home" and says they show up in scattered groups across the continent. Why couldn't Ardlings be the same? Being a core race doesn't mean you have to make up a bunch of cities for them.

[Dienekes]

To me it’s coming across as a dislike of the blandest excuse for mechanics pasted atop a lack of lore or inspiration for how the races fit into the world. My problem with oddball races in general has always been the questions of how they fit into the world, consequences of adding them to the world, and whether or not they fit the theme. Without sufficient context and inspiration there’s little to make generic furry creature #6833 more interesting and useful than any one page concept doodle + annotations sourced off the internet at random.

Give me a compelling tabaxi empire we can all share an understanding of, and then knowingly subvert its tropes when we get bored of the default.

Eh.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still in the general "What is this and why should I even attempt to care?" attitude about Ardlings.

But of all the token tacked on races, Tieflings/Aasimar/Ardlings are about the only ones that doesn't need an established empire and social organization. They literally just pop up in different race's societies.

I don't think a handful of such creatures is inherently bad. There's some interesting stories you can tell about such a creature and what makes them inherently different from those around them, how that affects their personality and the behavior of those they interact with. There's a lot you can mine for compelling drama there.

My issue with Ardlings is, that narrative mine was already being dug by Aasimar and in a much more interesting way. So we're left with "They're Aasimar with about half of the cool narrative that made them unique stripped out and now with animals... the animals don't do anything."

Which just feels disappointing all around.

[Segev]

I have a severe dislike for biological features that appear and disappear if you're not canonically a shapeshifter. Ardling wings and Dwarf Stonecunning-as-Tremorsense both push this button hard. Dragonborn breath being a few uses per day is something I'd prefer be tied to short resting, but that's not nearly as big of a deal; exhausting your breath weapon makes some thematic sense, at least, especially since dragons can't breathe every turn they take. But wings that literally appear and disappear during your turn are weird, at best, and not well-supported in lore. I didn't like it on Aasimar, either, and the Ardling version is even more obnoxious. Stonecunning not only being limited uses per day, not only requiring activation, but lasting - somehow - for 10 minutes after activation (not just "until the end of the turn," which at least could have been passed off as an active sonar ping or something) and SPECIFICALLY ALWAYS 10 minutes every activation... doesn't make sense except as a game mechanic.

When you divorce game mechanics from narrative fiction to this degree, you highlight that it's a game and that the racial features are not really racial features so much as gadgets in your cosplay costume to let you fake it.

[Pooky the Imp]

I have a severe dislike for biological features that appear and disappear if you're not canonically a shapeshifter. Ardling wings and Dwarf Stonecunning-as-Tremorsense both push this button hard. Dragonborn breath being a few uses per day is something I'd prefer be tied to short resting, but that's not nearly as big of a deal; exhausting your breath weapon makes some thematic sense, at least, especially since dragons can't breathe every turn they take. But wings that literally appear and disappear during your turn are weird, at best, and not well-supported in lore. I didn't like it on Aasimar, either, and the Ardling version is even more obnoxious. Stonecunning not only being limited uses per day, not only requiring activation, but lasting - somehow - for 10 minutes after activation (not just "until the end of the turn," which at least could have been passed off as an active sonar ping or something) and SPECIFICALLY ALWAYS 10 minutes every activation... doesn't make sense except as a game mechanic.

When you divorce game mechanics from narrative fiction to this degree, you highlight that it's a game and that the racial features are not really racial features so much as gadgets in your cosplay costume to let you fake it.

Do you think a universal Stamina mechanic, to which appropriate racial and class abilities could be tied might be a solution for some of these?


Either way, as far as wings are concerned, it seems like it would make more sense for them to develop as the character advances in level. Maybe at first they can just be used to glide or jump higher, but then at higher levels they can be used for full flight?

If nothing else, it would be nice to see some racial abilities that advance with level, as opposed to quickly ceasing to matter.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't really get the furry hate. Is it 2006 or something?

I would feel the same way if the image picked for "studded leather" included a ball gag.

[GooeyChewie]

Hmm... rereading the sidebar, it doesn't specifically say the two race options you pick to blend have to be different races. They just have to both be race options, which Elf x Elf are.

You'd still have to pick one parent's Lineage though.

chief grukgruk half-orc too. other half, also orc. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)

[lall]

I think this is the first time one can play a small human (since the game’s creation in 1974)?

Perhaps on the game’s 100th anniversary, one will be able to play a small elf.

[Xervous]

Eh.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still in the general "What is this and why should I even attempt to care?" attitude about Ardlings.

But of all the token tacked on races, Tieflings/Aasimar/Ardlings are about the only ones that doesn't need an established empire and social organization. They literally just pop up in different race's societies.


It’s not about having an explicit empire, it’s about having sufficient details explaining where they fit in - with more detail being demanded for novel concepts that aren’t carried on external preconceptions. I can use Aasimars and Tieflings easy because there’s popular understandings for how they’d fit in. Shifters are good in how they leverage classic werewolf lore. The (IDR) shardmind crystal people from 4e are a WTF example where the lore was either buried or never materialized. 4e took the obscure splat book Dragonborn and built culture interwoven with lore to the point that we could envision the Dragonborn experience. Fairies/Pixies/Etc work without much explanation because of countless cultural depictions that place us in the same ballpark of understanding.


So yeah, I agree and got caught up in rambling.

[Segev]

Do you think a universal Stamina mechanic, to which appropriate racial and class abilities could be tied might be a solution for some of these?


Either way, as far as wings are concerned, it seems like it would make more sense for them to develop as the character advances in level. Maybe at first they can just be used to glide or jump higher, but then at higher levels they can be used for full flight?

If nothing else, it would be nice to see some racial abilities that advance with level, as opposed to quickly ceasing to matter.

Not really, no. The wings appearing and disappearing for brief instances is already game-y and weird. Narrative fictions that have wings that do that have them do so at will and last for longer than 30 feet of movement before vanishing to make you fall, at least if they're something racial rather than some sort of unstable or otherwise-limited external magic.

And it certainly doesn't work for an active-use, on-for-ten-minutes sensory thing.


PB/long rest IS a 'universal stamina mechanic,' really. I hate it because it devalues short rests. While I prefer smaller numbers of uses that restore fully on short rests for short rest things, I would be reasonably okay with "PB/long rest; regain 1 use on a short rest" mechanics, too. Or even "regain half PB uses, round down as usual, on a short rest."

[Pooky the Imp]

Not really, no. The wings appearing and disappearing for brief instances is already game-y and weird. Narrative fictions that have wings that do that have them do so at will and last for longer than 30 feet of movement before vanishing to make you fall, at least if they're something racial rather than some sort of unstable or otherwise-limited external magic.

Oh absolutely, I agree about the wings.

As I said, I would think that physical wings (which get stronger over time) would be a better mechanic.

As for Stonecunning, I don't see why it isn't always-on. Even if the range starts off shorter, it just seems like something that shouldn't need to be switched on.



PB/long rest IS a 'universal stamina mechanic,' really. I hate it because it devalues short rests. While I prefer smaller numbers of uses that restore fully on short rests for short rest things, I would be reasonably okay with "PB/long rest; regain 1 use on a short rest" mechanics, too. Or even "regain half PB uses, round down as usual, on a short rest."

I think you've misunderstood me.

PB/long rest isn't universal because it's used separately for each mechanic. What I was talking about was something more akin to Ki - where multiple abilities use the same resource pool.

(Though, I do agree with your overall point. Tbh, I'm honestly sick of seeing PB/long rest for every ability - even racial ones.)

[Psyren]

It’s not about having an explicit empire, it’s about having sufficient details explaining where they fit in - with more detail being demanded for novel concepts that aren’t carried on external preconceptions. I can use Aasimars and Tieflings easy because there’s popular understandings for how they’d fit in. Shifters are good in how they leverage classic werewolf lore. The (IDR) shardmind crystal people from 4e are a WTF example where the lore was either buried or never materialized. 4e took the obscure splat book Dragonborn and built culture interwoven with lore to the point that we could envision the Dragonborn experience. Fairies/Pixies/Etc work without much explanation because of countless cultural depictions that place us in the same ballpark of understanding.


So yeah, I agree and got caught up in rambling.

Shardminds did have lore, and I loved it - them basically being reality's immune response to the reality-warping Far Realm was pretty genius. And it meant they could fit into nearly every published setting, since almost all of them have mindflayers and aboleths.


...at least if they're something racial rather than some sort of unstable or otherwise-limited external magic.

Not seeing why those are mutually exclusive - racial magic can certainly be unstable and limited. Firbolgs for example can only turn invisible for one turn at a time, and their invisibility has more restrictions than the spell, that's pretty unstable and limited racial magic.



As for Stonecunning, I don't see why it isn't always-on. Even if the range starts off shorter, it just seems like something that shouldn't need to be switched on.

Constant Tremorsense is a bit much for new DMs to keep track of, especially on such a common race option. "Oh right, you'd have known those enemies were behind that door, I guess they didn't ambush your party after all, do-over..."

Whereas if the dwarf has to turn it on, not only is there a clear separation between when you need to reveal information to the dwarf player vs not, the DM gets to plan challenges around it when needed rather than suddenly putting steel floors in every dungeon.

[Naanomi]

Shardminds did have lore, and I loved it - them basically being reality's immune response to the reality-warping Far Realm was pretty genius. And it meant they could fit into nearly every published setting, since almost all of them have mindflayers and aboleths.
Although outside of 4e, Illithid are not particularly tied to the Far Realm; and Aboleth's connection to that place is very distant

[Millstone85]

The (IDR) shardmind crystal people from 4e are a WTF example where the lore was either buried or never materialized.
Shardminds did have lore, and I loved it - them basically being reality's immune response to the reality-warping Far Realm was pretty genius. And it meant they could fit into nearly every published setting, since almost all of them have mindflayers and aboleths.I am with Psyren there. Don't badmouth the shardmind. :smallamused:


Although outside of 4e, Illithid are not particularly tied to the Far Realm; and Aboleth's connection to that place is very distantIn 5e, "Aberrations such as mind flayers and beholders are either from this plane or shaped by its strange influence" (DMG p68).

[Psyren]

Millstone beat me to the quote but yeah, Far Realm is basically Aberration central in 5e - their ancestors if not they themselves.

[Naanomi]

In 5e, "Aberrations such as mind flayers and beholders are either from this plane or shaped by its strange influence" (DMG p68).
Even their own beholder lore doesn't imply that beyond the DMG quote (which seems, to me, like an orphaned 4e reference; like most mentions of Primordials)

[Millstone85]

Even their own beholder lore doesn't imply that beyond the DMG quote (which seems, to me, like an orphaned 4e reference; like most mentions of Primordials)For a more recent source, there is the illustration of a Far Realm incursion in TCoE, page 153.

https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2020/10/324237_Titus-Lunter2-720x465.jpg
Alright, it is open to interpretation. Maybe the illithids just happened to be there before the planar tear opened, or one of their experiments went wrong, and now they are spelljamming away from the sea of tentacles, eyes and mouths. Or maybe they find that environment a suitable fortress, facilitated by their ancestral connection to the aberrant plane.

[HidesHisEyes]

(I will say I'm kinda tired of the focus on unusual and rare species. Players forget all too often that they are, in fact, unusual and rare. I'd rather see more love and emphasis placed on common races to make them more alluring and more insistence that if you play something less common, there will be reactions from the common folk.)



Me too. It’s hard to make dragons, fiends, celestials and elementals seem otherworldly and exciting when in a typical adventuring party at least one of the characters is going to greet them with “hey you might have known my uncle”. My response has been to lean into this and commit to settings where there are all kinds of crazy types of people wandering around. I call it the Mos Eisley Cantina approach. But I do dream of playing a D&D with modern gameplay sensibilities but where meeting an elf is a big deal.

[Damon_Tor]

Me too. It’s hard to make dragons, fiends, celestials and elementals seem otherworldly and exciting when in a typical adventuring party at least one of the characters is going to greet them with “hey you might have known my uncle”. My response has been to lean into this and commit to settings where there are all kinds of crazy types of people wandering around. I call it the Mos Eisley Cantina approach. But I do dream of playing a D&D with modern gameplay sensibilities but where meeting an elf is a big deal.

A guy ran a very interesting campaign at a FLGS a loooong time ago, one of my first exposures to really high-effort DMing and worldbuilding. New people joined the game all the time, but when you joined (or made a new PC for whatever reason) your character had to be a local to wherever the party finds itself. At the start of the game that just meant humans, half-elves and halflings were possible PCs, but as the game went on and the party moved around new characters joined in the various settlements we'd find ourselves at. At a high-elf city? Then your PC would have to be a high elf. It really helped the party feel like a living, breathing part of the world. Having a steady stream of PCs who were natives to the current region was also a very handy story-moving tool. Often the new PC in question would meet the party and already have knowledge relevant to the quest.

There were several occasions where a player wasn't jazzed about playing as a certain race, in which case they were entirely welcome to make a character with short-term goals with the party and soon as the party was in a location where it was appropriate to have a character of a different race, that player could have the first character bow-out of the story and introduce someone new. Often the player will do this with every intention of taking the DM up on the offer, but upon finding themselves in a position to switch would find that they enjoyed playing as a race they wouldn't have otherwise been keen to try and would keep it.

[Psyren]

Me too. It’s hard to make dragons, fiends, celestials and elementals seem otherworldly and exciting when in a typical adventuring party at least one of the characters is going to greet them with “hey you might have known my uncle”. My response has been to lean into this and commit to settings where there are all kinds of crazy types of people wandering around. I call it the Mos Eisley Cantina approach. But I do dream of playing a D&D with modern gameplay sensibilities but where meeting an elf is a big deal.

1) Why not give that a try? You don't have to wait for a published D&D setting to have rare elves. Run a middle-earth campaign or similar.

2) I think celestials and fiends and dragons can feel special even in a setting where fantastic races abound. Look at OotS for example, there are plenty of exotic / non-core humanoids running around but half the outsiders they summon are still largely unheard of etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Elves have no magic in OD&D, nor is there any way for them to be a fighter/magic-user in that game.
You are (somewhat) mistaken.

Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero) nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other usual tongues.
That was the original F/MU, based on the assumption that each gaming session was one delve into a dungeon and out. You had to pick which role you were playing (F or MU) before beginning the adventure, if one tried to go strictly "RAW" - but in those days RAW mania had not yet set in. I saw quite a few F/MU in play where that restriction was not honored. Also saw quite a few Thief / MU half elves (Greyhawk) mix and match in play. And on page 5 of Greyhawk, which was also O D&D, you could be a F/MU/Th simultaneously.

Elven thieves work in all three categories at once (fighter, magic-user, and thief) unless they opt to never be anything other than in the thief category. Thus, experience is always distributed proportionately in the three categories even when the elf can no longer gain additional levels in a given category. However, it is possible to be an eleven Myrmidon/Sorcerer/Master Thief, for example, with a character having exceptionally high scores in strength and intelligence, and the only limit on how high in the thief category the elf can progress will be that placed upon him by the division of experience points. When acting in the thief capacity the elf can wear only leather armor. As dwarves, elves have infravision and can see monsters up to 60' away in the dark. This suggests to me that they were already playing F/MU by 1975 when that F/MU/Th bit was written, but I can't swear to it in a court of law.

Basic IS NOT OD&D. Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and Wilderness Adventures were the original game. Correct,. but you left out Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry that were OD&D supplements before Basic was published or the AD&D PHB (the first of the big three)

While I think that Basic reflected the way a lot of people played Original, I can't prove it and honestly, nobody can. :smallbiggrin:

I thought that OD&D elves could pick between Fighting-men and Magic-users at the start of the day, am I getting confused with a retroclone? You are correct, see the rules citations I provided.

But yeah, elves as Fighters/Magic Users was a BD&D invention and I believe actually debuted after AD&D.
Yes. IIRC, AD&D made the F/MU a standard for elves.

In the human-focused early days of D&D it wasn't a bad thing to go archetypal with the races Simpler too.

[Carpe Gonzo]

Ardlings should lose the celestial theme both mechanically and fluff-wise, and just be fey. All the other animal-themed races already are except for aarakocra and kenku and giff. and probably those elephant people in ravnica but i don't use mtg.

"Cthonic" tieflings makes me want an aberration-tiefling equivalent :P

I'm pro-natural 1s being automatic failures on checks (it means high level rogues can actually fail stealth checks against passive Perception). I'm iffy on natural 20s being automatic successes. "the portcullis is too heavy for the scrawny wizard" example put me from "I'm fine", to "yeah that's undesirable". Nat-1s and nat-20s for saves is absolutely fine. I'm definitely keeping monster crits no matter what. though i'm fine with the nerf on players. i'm absolutely okay with smiting not critting since it's an expendable resource that you choose when to apply, but would prefer to keep sneak attack. i'm of two minds for spells no longer critting. Maybe if it were just cantrips that no longer crit, i'd be fine with that.

i suspect the spell list divide is to make adding new classes less of a pain. it's a steal from pathfinder 2e that i really like.

[Millstone85]

just be fey. All the other animal-themed races already are except for aarakocra and kenku and giff.Also lizardfolk, minotaur, shifter, tabaxi, tortle, triton and yuan-ti.

Only three animal-themed races are fey (centaur, satyr) or from the Feywild (harengon).

[Carpe Gonzo]

Also lizardfolk, minotaur, shifter, tabaxi, tortle, triton and yuan-ti.

Only three animal-themed races are fey (centaur, satyr) or from the Feywild (harengon).

Could've sworn minotaur were rebranded as fey but it looks like I was wrong there. I'll also admit I forgot about tortles, tabaxi, and grung (though bullywugs do feature in the fey adventure). I don't really count lizardfolk since they're sorta just "reptilian" rather than a specific animal. Same with triton being aquatic humanoids rather than fishfolk. And yuan-ti slipped my mind since magic is involved in their origins (being converted from normal humanoids similar to illithids). And shifters are eberron / lycanthropy. I concede the point though.

also forgot hadozee.