One D&D Playtest Part Two: "Character Origins" (Survey opens 9/1)

[Psyren]

The first One D&D playtest, "Character Origins" is currently live on D&D Beyond. This is a continuation of the first playtest discussion thread found here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?648909-One-D-amp-D-quot-Character-Origins-quot-Playtest-now-live

Direct link to playtest document: Unearthed Arcana: Character Origins (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf)
Playtest FAQ: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
D&D Beyond Link for survey (live 9/1): https://dndbeyond.link/st_OneDnD_WizardsPresents

Developer video for first playtest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOQ_Exh0DmY

[Kane0]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Edit: Count as of 326 votes
38% Thumbs up
37% Thumbs down
25% Meh

[Ortho]

I was going to ask in the last thread, but it seems I was a little slow on the draw:

Is there much point to a second thread? The previous thread kinda went in circles after 30 or so pages. I don't think there's all that much left to say.

[animorte]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139
Thank you for this.


I was going to ask in the last thread, but it seems I was a little slow on the draw:

Is there much point to a second thread? The previous thread kinda went in circles after 30 or so pages. I don't think there's all that much left to say.
Then let’s talk about all the other stuff. I was thinking about just linking my comment review that got absolutely zero response, haha.

[Psyren]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Thumbs up concept
Thumbs down current wording


I was going to ask in the last thread, but it seems I was a little slow on the draw:

Is there much point to a second thread? The previous thread kinda went in circles after 30 or so pages. I don't think there's all that much left to say.

The wording of the official survey will be very interesting I'd say, as well as where they introduce freeform comment fields.

[Millstone85]

The wording of the official survey will be very interesting I'd say, as well as where they introduce freeform comment fields.It sure would be nice if there was, for example, a separate comment field for each race.

[Dork_Forge]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Voted. thanks!

[Cheesegear]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

It's good because everyone has a 5% chance to pass DC 21+ skill checks regardless of modifiers.
It's bad because everyone has a 5% chance to fail DC 5/10 skill checks regardless of modifiers.

Opposed Skill Checks get very...Weird. If that's the intent, okay. If that's not the intent, then that's bad.


'A test is warranted if the DC is between 5 and 30.'
This one sentence alone creates a problem for the sentence preceding it, which arguably allows - or forces - players to roll on any check they like, if the check has a DC. Potentially outside of the DM's control. Because it creates this scenario:

I, the DM, have determined that a d20 Test is not warranted, and I am right in all circumstances.
A d20 Test is warranted if the Test has a DC between 5 and 30, therefore, the DM is wrong in this circumstance.

This creates a contradiction that very badly needs to be cleared up. Assuming that the blue reading is correct:

The fact that a 1 always fails, and a 20 always passes, now effectively allows - or forces - every player (who wants to) to roll on every check because every player has a chance to pass or fail, which means that no roll is ever 100% not required - because there's actually a 5% chance that it is required. This will lead to a lot of wasted time because 19 out of 20 times it wont matter if the player rolled at all on a DC<5 or 21+ check. A slow game is a bad game. Please fix.

So whether or not rolling Crits is a good thing or not, for me, is actually determined by whether or not or how the quoted sentence above is removed or changed, because whilst DC 21+ checks don't come up all that often, DC 5 checks happen regularly. So that Nat 1 rule is actually a lot worse for players, than the Nat 20 rule is bad for DMs.

If the blue reading is not correct, then remove or change the words in that sentence.

[Brookshw]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Voted, curious about results.

[Leon]

Will the pointless circular argument continue... or will something useful get talked about instead. Who knows, with this forum I suspect its the former.

[Cheesegear]

Will the pointless circular argument continue...

But I perceive someone on the internet to be wrong...I will never sleep until I rectify this injustice.

[Psyren]

Will the pointless circular argument continue... or will something useful get talked about instead. Who knows, with this forum I suspect its the former.

Technically nothing here is useful, only the survey will be (if that.)

But switching gears until then, what's everyone's favorite and least favorite race change in the UA?

For me, the most favorite is a toss-up between Humans finally being useful and Gnomes (one of my favorite races) getting advantage on all mental saves now instead of just the ones vs. magic.

Least favorite is Dragonborn reverting to their pre-Fizban state, though I do like the breath weapon damage scaling better than the PHB version and the fact that they got darkvision.

[animorte]

But I perceive someone on the internet to be wrong...I will never sleep until I rectify this injustice.

I feel you and certainly can’t hold it against you. But… if it does take over again, would it be fair to request that be isolated to a thread of its own?

[Brookshw]

Curious if they'll change the planar cosmology. Between the Ardling in core, SJ's changes to the material and astral, and incoming PS, they certainly seem to have some thoughts. Then again, up until now, Perkins seemed to try to stick to big lore points, which the great wheel is definitely a part of. Don't know anything about MtG to hazard a guess how they could further marry the two settings.

[Cheesegear]

But switching gears until then, what's everyone's favorite and least favorite race change in the UA?

I like that preternatural races are given racial spells, as it ties them to the fact that magic is - or at least in part - integral to their nature - because Fantasy.

I don't like that those Races get to use Class Spell Slots to cast those spells additional times per day, as doing that effectively adds a Spell to that Class' spell list, and/or frees up one of that character's spell slots for a different spell. It creates a tangible - albeit small - advantage to selecting specific Races when playing specific classes, and I had assumed that D&D was trying to avoid saying that certain Races are better for playing certain Classes.


Least favorite is Dragonborn reverting to their pre-Fizban state

That is also bad, yes.

[Psyren]

Curious if they'll change the planar cosmology. Between the Ardling in core, SJ's changes to the material and astral, and incoming PS, they certainly seem to have some thoughts. Then again, up until now, Perkins seemed to try to stick to big lore points, which the great wheel is definitely a part of. Don't know anything about MtG to hazard a guess how they could further merry the two settings.

With the "multiverse" being more of a thing, they don't necessarily have to alter a given setting's cosmology too much.

For example, Tieflings and Ardlings might be relatively unheard of somewhere like Krynn - but that doesn't mean the various warring gods don't know about them or the outsiders that give rise to them. Maybe they're just rare in Ansalon, or relatively new. Ultimately though, people in that setting have bigger problems than the guy who walked into the bar having hooves.


I like that preternatural races are given racial spells, as it ties them to the fact that magic is - or at least in part - integral to their nature - because Fantasy.

I don't like that those Races get to use Class Spell Slots to cast those spells additional times per day, as doing that effectively adds a Spell to that Class' spell list, and/or frees up one of that character's spell slots for a different spell. It creates a tangible - albeit small - advantage to selecting specific Races when playing specific classes, and I had assumed that D&D was trying to avoid saying that certain Races are better for playing certain Classes.

Bold is a bit of an oversimplification. Of course some races will be better with some classes, the only way to avoid that is to keep racials so bland or minor that they barely have any impact at all. Halflings for instance still make great rogues in this UA, because being able to move through enemies makes your bonus action Disengage extremely easy to use.

What they wanted to avoid was the ability scores indicating that certain races are ill-suited to certain classes in a broad sense.

[Leon]

Technically nothing here is useful.

Yep my mistake, forgot which forum i was on.

[Pex]

Technically nothing here is useful, only the survey will be (if that.)

But switching gears until then, what's everyone's favorite and least favorite race change in the UA?

For me, the most favorite is a toss-up between Humans finally being useful and Gnomes (one of my favorite races) getting advantage on all mental saves now instead of just the ones vs. magic.

Least favorite is Dragonborn reverting to their pre-Fizban state, though I do like the breath weapon damage scaling better than the PHB version and the fact that they got darkvision.

Humans are useful, and I'm glad they are, but only so far as the other races were toned down a little which is a good thing. The racial abilities are on par with 1st level feats, so while they get fixed abilities the human player gets to choose. It does help humans now benefit from the same +2/+1 as everyone else or +1/+1/+1 allowed with Custom Background. Obviously feats are official now so Variant Human isn't needed. I can nod my head to others bothered many races getting spells (Magic Initiate chosen for them), but whatever changes they warrant don't let human fall behind.

I concur Fizban dragonborn was fine. What they did here was unnecessary and wrong. Ardling needs to go away. Make Aasimar Core.

[Psyren]

Humans are useful, and I'm glad they are, but only so far as the other races were toned down a little which is a good thing. The racial abilities are on par with 1st level feats, so while they get fixed abilities the human player gets to choose. It does help humans now benefit from the same +2/+1 as everyone else or +1/+1/+1 allowed with Custom Background. Obviously feats are official now so Variant Human isn't needed. I can nod my head to others bothered many races getting spells (Magic Initiate chosen for them), but whatever changes they warrant don't let human fall behind.

I concur Fizban dragonborn was fine. What they did here was unnecessary and wrong. Ardling needs to go away. Make Aasimar Core.

Not sure what you mean by the other races getting toned down, pretty much all of them got buffed.

My guess is that Aasimar might have been powerful but fine... if it weren't for Radiant Soul.

[Kane0]

When you get racial magic its also added to your class list if you can cast spells (the vast majority of classes), but if you get a breath weapon you cannot use it as an attack.

Excellent work returning to the double standard there, WoTC. You had this fixed not 12 months ago too!

[Pex]

Not sure what you mean by the other races getting toned down, pretty much all of them got buffed.


Not my impression, just different. I suppose taking away weapon and armor proficiencies and unifying ASI is the key. In 5e races get a laundry list of abilities and human diddly squat. Now the list is shorter, and human by default gets stuff of exactly what the player wants. As Cheesegear would say, I don't have the Feels Bad picking human over another race. Though I have played a non-human - my current paladin is a dwarf - ever since 2E I mostly play a human out of protest they sucked so bad compared to everyone else, though human did get some love in 3E/Pathfinder. Maybe 2E left such a sour taste I'm underestimating what came later. Anyway I'm so used to playing human now anything else is hard to convince myself to play. Maybe now I can since with human on par with everyone else I don't need to protest anymore even though it was only ever in my head.

[Cheesegear]

Not sure what you mean by the other races getting toned down, pretty much all of them got buffed.

Dwarf. Lost Proficiency in Light and Medium Armour. Also lost the ability to move in Heavy Armour they lack the STR requirement for. Opened up a couple of a builds worth playing. Those are gone now. Dwarves just got nerfed. No question.

Elf. Got to keep basically everything. Because Elves are Elves and Elves get everything they want.

Halfling. Naturally Stealthy was nerfed to just be Proficient in Stealth (which you could just get from several other sources), and they lost the Dwarven defenses against Poison/ed.

Variant Human. Got buffed with the free Inspiration, but got nerfed due to the free Feat being limited. Until we get more and/or better 1st-Level Feats it's hard to know exactly how much this affects many builds. Alert and Magic Initiate are great, sure. But, there are several builds in the game that don't really need those. After all, both Alert and Magic Initiate see diminishing returns, depending on how many people in the party have them. Maybe you're the 5th Man and last to have a character idea, the party just doesn't need a third character with Alert and we definitely don't need a fourth character with Healing Word... Sure would be nice to have Sharpshooter...

Dragonborn. We know...We know. I said WE KNOW!

Gnome. Lateral move. Forest Gnomes lost the ability to speak with Small or smaller Beasts, whenever they want, to Speak With Animals, Prof./Day. Possibly a nerf, possibly a buff. Rock Gnomes got buffed with free Cantrips at the cost of Artificer's Lore. Which is fine, I guess.

Half-Elf. ...Sorry, I don't know what that is.

Half-Orc. Lost Proficiency in Intimidation, because Orcs aren't scary. Other races are racially proficient in skills. But not Orcs, and not Intimidation. That has "unfortunate connontations" beca- Never mind. Lost Savage Attacks, which was useful for a few builds. Gained Powerful Build which most people wont even use, and Bonus Action; Dash. Once again I'll say this is more or less lateral. However, given the new focus on Crits and how you get Inspiration, maybe it's good that Orcs lost their ability to do big(ger) crits? Dunno. I'd hesitate to call this a buff, but I can see the argument.

Tiefling. Basically the same. You get to change your Resistances and pick up different spells. But Tieflings already had nine variants by the time UA came out, so whatever.

IMO pretty much all of them stayed the same or were nerfed. Rock Gnomes got technically buffed, I suppose.

[Dork_Forge]

Dwarf. Lost Proficiency in Light and Medium Armour. Also lost the ability to move in Heavy Armour they lack the STR requirement for. Opened up a couple of a builds worth playing. Those are gone now. Dwarves just got nerfed. No question.

Elf. Got to keep basically everything. Because Elves are Elves and Elves get everything they want.

Halfling. Naturally Stealthy was nerfed to just be Proficient in Stealth (which you could just get from several other sources), and they lost the Dwarven defenses against Poison/ed.

Variant Human. Got buffed with the free Inspiration, but got nerfed due to the free Feat being limited. Until we get more and/or better 1st-Level Feats it's hard to know exactly how much this affects many builds. Alert and Magic Initiate are great, sure. But, there are several builds in the game that don't really need those. After all, both Alert and Magic Initiate see diminishing returns, depending on how many people in the party have them. Maybe you're the 5th Man and last to have a character idea, the party just doesn't need a third character with Alert and we definitely don't need a fourth character with Healing Word... Sure would be nice to have Sharpshooter...

Dragonborn. We know...We know. I said WE KNOW!

Gnome. Lateral move. Forest Gnomes lost the ability to speak with Small or smaller Beasts, whenever they want, to Speak With Animals, Prof./Day. Possibly a nerf, possibly a buff. Rock Gnomes got buffed with free Cantrips at the cost of Artificer's Lore. Which is fine, I guess.

Half-Elf. ...Sorry, I don't know what that is.

Half-Orc. Lost Proficiency in Intimidation, because Orcs aren't scary. Other races are racially proficient in skills. But not Orcs, and not Intimidation. That has "unfortunate connontations" beca- Never mind. Lost Savage Attacks, which was useful for a few builds. Gained Powerful Build which most people wont even use, and Bonus Action; Dash. Once again I'll say this is more or less lateral. However, given the new focus on Crits and how you get Inspiration, maybe it's good that Orcs lost their ability to do big(ger) crits? Dunno. I'd hesitate to call this a buff, but I can see the argument.

Tiefling. Basically the same. You get to change your Resistances and pick up different spells. But Tieflings already had nine variants by the time UA came out, so whatever.

IMO pretty much all of them stayed the same or were nerfed. Rock Gnomes got technically buffed, I suppose.

Overall agree, but some points I'd like to mentions:

Elves didn't just keep their stuff, they got buffed up with the various spells and Drow losing Sunlight Sensitivity.

Halflings, Gnomes, and Dwarves all got a minor bump from going up to 30 ft. speed.

Gnomish Cunning got buffed to be more generally applicable, so actually useful. Sometimes.

Tieflings gained a cantrip, as they all get Thaumaturgy on top of the lineage cantrip.

[Cheesegear]

Halflings, Gnomes, and Dwarves all got a minor bump from going up to 30 ft. speed.

That's...Nothing. Especially for tables that like dungeon crawls.


Tieflings gained a cantrip, as they all get Thaumaturgy on top of the lineage cantrip.

When the bar is so low getting Thaumaturgy is considered a buff. :smallsigh:

[Kane0]

Wood Elf before:
Darkvision
Fey Ancestry
Trance
Perception
Weapon training
+5' speed
Hide in light foliage

Wood Elf now:
Darkvision
Fey Ancestry
Trance
Perception
+5' speed
Druidcraft + Longstrider/PWT

May be a fair trade depending on how those spells work out, but I think I prefer the old one.

[diplomancer]

'A test is warranted if the DC is between 5 and 30.'

That quote is nowhere in the rules. Correct quote is "TO BE warranted, a test...". And no, I'm not being pedantic. It makes all the difference. If the quote was like you've said, it would indeed be contradictory to the first sentence. As it is, all it does is exclude from "warrantedness" DCs below 5 and above 30 (which makes me wonder if they will cap AC at 30).

[Leon]

Dwarf. Also lost the ability to move in Heavy Armour they lack the STR requirement for

Was a fairly consistent dwarf thing to have till now across several editions.

As a whole it seems to be that they are taking away a lot of things that made races individual and going for a homogenized paperdoll with some extra abilities tacked on

[Cheesegear]

That quote is nowhere in the rules. Correct quote is "TO BE warranted, a test...". And no, I'm not being pedantic. It makes all the difference.

At this point I don't give a **** about the exact wording, because the exact wording is what's causing the problem. I care about this exact scenario:

Does this action have a DC?
Yes.
Is the DC between 5 and 30?
Yes.
So a d20 Test is warranted and I should roll a dice (because regardless of modifiers I can still roll a Nat [1/20] and [fail/pass] anything)?
No.

Can this scenario happen? If yes; Is that a feature, or a bug?

[diplomancer]

At this point I don't give a **** about the exact wording, because the exact wording is what's causing the problem. I care about this exact scenario:

Does this action have a DC?
Yes.
Is the DC between 5 and 30?
Yes.
So a d20 Test is warranted and I should roll a dice (because regardless of modifiers I can still roll a Nat [1/20] and [fail/pass] anything)?
No.

Can this scenario happen? If yes; Is that a feature, or a bug?

Any scenario can happen. But if the rules are actually followed, it's more like:

Does this action have a DC?
Not for your character; for him, it's impossible
Is the DC between 5 and 30?
For those who can try it, yes.
So a d20 Test is warranted and I should roll a dice (because regardless of modifiers I can still roll a Nat [1/20] and [fail/pass] anything)?
No. Having a DC between 5 and 30 is a prerequisite for a test to be warranted, but that does not mean that the check IS always warranted for everyone in those cases. I decide, in any circumstance, whether a check is warranted
(Insert Anakin's "I hate you" image here)

That said, I wouldn't mind changing it from: "to be warranted..." to "if warranted, a check should have a DC between 5 and 30". Would make it clearer, and save us about 40 pages of arguing... though I'm still not sure whether it would prevent the scenario you outlined. If a player misreads "to be warranted", mixing up antecedent and consequent, I don't see what stops him from misreading "if warranted" in the same way.

[Psyren]

IMO pretty much all of them stayed the same or were nerfed. Rock Gnomes got technically buffed, I suppose.

Wrong.


Dwarf. Lost Proficiency in Light and Medium Armour. Also lost the ability to move in Heavy Armour they lack the STR requirement for. Opened up a couple of a builds worth playing. Those are gone now. Dwarves just got nerfed. No question.

Point on the armor, but they needed it. Armor proficiency shouldn't be a racial, especially in core.
Also, move speed, buff.
Tremorsense, buff.



Elf. Got to keep basically everything. Because Elves are Elves and Elves get everything they want.

Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
Got more powerful spells e.g. Misty Step for High Elves.
Drow lost sunlight sensititvity, buff.



Halfling. Naturally Stealthy was nerfed to just be Proficient in Stealth (which you could just get from several other sources), and they lost the Dwarven defenses against Poison/ed.

Not needing to get it from other sources is a buff.
Move speed, buff.
Brave works on subsequent saves now, buff.



Variant Human. Got buffed with the free Inspiration, but got nerfed due to the free Feat being limited. Until we get more and/or better 1st-Level Feats it's hard to know exactly how much this affects many builds. Alert and Magic Initiate are great, sure. But, there are several builds in the game that don't really need those. After all, both Alert and Magic Initiate see diminishing returns, depending on how many people in the party have them. Maybe you're the 5th Man and last to have a character idea, the party just doesn't need a third character with Alert and we definitely don't need a fourth character with Healing Word... Sure would be nice to have Sharpshooter...

Even if VHuman still exists, it lost non-1st-level feats too. And even compared to it:
Inspiration, buff.
Skill, buff.
+2/+1, buff.



Gnome. Lateral move. Forest Gnomes lost the ability to speak with Small or smaller Beasts, whenever they want, to Speak With Animals, Prof./Day. Possibly a nerf, possibly a buff. Rock Gnomes got buffed with free Cantrips at the cost of Artificer's Lore. Which is fine, I guess.

Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
Gnome Cunning works on all mental saves now instead of just magic, buff.
Clockwork Device can be made in 10 minutes instead of an hour, buff.
Speak With Animals lets you understand them, buff.
Move speed, buff.


Tiefling. Basically the same. You get to change your Resistances and pick up different spells. But Tieflings already had nine variants by the time UA came out, so whatever.

Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
More varieties in core than just infernal, buff.
All variants get thaumaturgy in addition to their own spells, buff.

Pretty much your only point was Dwarves, and even they got something universally useful to make up for the loss of armor proficiency.

[animorte]

Going to throw this out again if anybody cares to take a look at it. My mediocre thoughts. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25556791&postcount=733)

[Cheesegear]

[Dwarf]
Also, move speed, buff.
Tremorsense, buff.

I rate neither of those things. Also, it's not even Tremorsense. If you told me that Dwarves have Tremorsense, I would count that as a massive buff. But that's not what they have and you know it.


[Elf]
Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
Got more powerful spells e.g. Misty Step for High Elves.
Drow lost sunlight sensititvity, buff.

Racial spells are only buffs insofar as a lot of Races got racial spells. It's not unique to Elves, and it's not something that I would rate them specifically for, unless you want to rate the indvidual spells they get against each other. I can do that...Later. Someone else might do it first if they read this, though.


[Halfing]
Not needing to get it from other sources is a buff.
Move speed, buff.
Brave works on subsequent saves now, buff.

Being nerfed to Stealth Proficiency is a nerf. Because you used to get something no other Race could get, and Stealth. One of the great things about Halfings, is that they could play a Stealth character - regardless of Class, but obviously Rogues - in a way that no other class could. Now, they just have Proficiency in Stealth. That's a solid nerf.

Move speed isn't anything.

I didn't even notice the change to Brave (although I did in my original thoughts). So yes, technically it's a buff. But it's not something I'll rate.


[Variant Human / Tasha's Humanoid]
Inspiration, buff.
Skill, buff.
+2/+1, buff.

The only real change is the Inspiration. But since you can get Inspiration from so many other sources - including dice rolls - this isn't something I'm going to rate.

With the new Backgrounds giving you anything you want, having Racial Skills is far less valuable than it used to be...Unless that Racial Skill is Perception, or a Diplomacy skill. So okay. That can count. Humans have proficiency in Perception now. I'll count that as a buff. But also I might count it as a nerf, since Tasha's Humanoid says you can have Proficiency (Perception), or Darkvision. I'll take the Darkvision, since I can get Perception from a Background or from Class Skills. ...Even if I can't take Perception from a Background or Class Skill...Darkvision is still very nice to have. So...Nerf?

Meanwhile Elves get Perception and Darkvision, because Elves.


[Gnomes]
Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
Gnome Cunning works on all mental saves now instead of just magic, buff.
Clockwork Device can be made in 10 minutes instead of an hour, buff.
Speak With Animals lets you understand them, buff.
Move speed, buff.

At this point 'Every race got buffed' is only true if your bar is on the floor. Including the Clockwork Device in your list as a 'buff', says that your bar is not a very hard bar to clear.


[Tieflings]
Can cast their racial spells with slots and any ability score, buff.
More varieties in core than just infernal, buff.
All variants get thaumaturgy in addition to their own spells, buff.

Casting racial spells with any ability is a wash, because at this point it's simply the new mechanic.
'More varieties in core' That's a quality of life improvement, not a buff. The varieties already existed, they just weren't in core...Also there's six missing...Isn't that a nerf?
I already mentioned that I don't care about Thaumaturgy.


Pretty much your only point...

Your point is effectively saying that 2/10 is better than 1/10, so that's a buff.
In that sense, yes. Most Races were buffed. I can give you that. Clockwork Device is a buff, sure.

[Psyren]

I rate neither of those things.

Not rating buffs as buffs means we're not going to get anywhere.

[Cheesegear]

Not rating buffs as buffs means we're not going to get anywhere.

Saying that 2/10 is better than 1/10 is true.

But if you're saying that 2/10 is worth celebrating, then no. We wont get anywhere and we'll agree on that.

[Psyren]

Saying that 2/10 is better than 1/10 is true.

But if you're saying that 2/10 is worth celebrating, then no. We wont get anywhere and we'll agree on that.

"Tremorsense isn't Tremorsense."
"No comment on Gnome Cunning."
"Move speed isn't anything"
"Inspiration isn't anything"
"I didn't notice Brave"
"Racial spells is the new mechanic"
"New Tieflings isn't anything."

We don't even agree on math.

[stoutstien]

Funny. I rate movement speed as very important so the 5ft speed buff for half the races is probably the biggest buff.

[JackPhoenix]

The only real change is the Inspiration. But since you can get Inspiration from so many other sources - including dice rolls - this isn't something I'm going to rate.

One thing to note here is that everyone else loses Inspiration on a long rest. Humans are the only one who "retain" it.

[Kane0]

Poll has nearly hit 60 answers by the way, thumbs down clearly in the lead which is what i expected from here. Its a small, niche sample size but good to see numbers.

[Gignere]

Funny. I rate movement speed as very important so the 5ft speed buff for half the races is probably the biggest buff.

Movement speed is huge there were so many times a player playing a dwarf character we’re like damn I wish I had another 5 feet of movement. However I guess if their DM doesn’t use kiting tactics on the party some people may never feel the pain of that 5 feet but there were several fights where the dwarf character were spending at least if not more than half his turns just dashing. So 5 feet movement is pretty massive.

[Pex]

That said, I wouldn't mind changing it from: "to be warranted..." to "if warranted, a check should have a DC between 5 and 30". Would make it clearer, and save us about 40 pages of arguing... though I'm still not sure whether it would prevent the scenario you outlined. If a player misreads "to be warranted", mixing up antecedent and consequent, I don't see what stops him from misreading "if warranted" in the same way.

"If warranted" still makes the rule superfluous. If you don't roll because the DM agrees you're that good so autosuccess, 1 always fails never comes up. The DM is ignoring the rule. If you don't roll because the DM determines it's too hard for you so autofail, 20 always succeeds never comes up. The DM is ignoring the rule. If you do roll because the DM agrees it can go either way, if you roll a 1 you would have failed anyway and if you roll a 20 you would have succeeded anyway. The rule made no difference.

At best case the rule doesn't need to be there. Better to get rid of it and avoid all the confusion, angst, and arguing for those people who allegedly misinterpret the meaning.

[Cheesegear]

Funny. I rate movement speed as very important so the 5ft speed buff for half the races is probably the biggest buff.

Bigger than having Misty Step always prepared on all Class Spell Lists not counting towards your Spells Known, with at least one free casting per day even if your Class can't cast spells at all?

Okydoke.


Movement speed is huge there were so many times a player playing a dwarf character we’re like damn I wish I had another 5 feet of movement.

Granted it happens more than never. But I don't usually start my encounters exactly 30 ft. apart so it rarely comes up.


but there were several fights where the dwarf character were spending at least if not more than half his turns just dashing.

My players' Dwarves either:
- Dodge
- Ready a Melee Attack, or
- Use a Ranged Weapon

Spending at least half your turns just Dashing...I'd like to know more about that combat as a whole. :smallconfused:

[stoutstien]

Bigger than having Misty Step always prepared on all Class Spell Lists not counting towards your Spells Known, with at least one free casting per day even if your Class can't cast spells at all?

Okydoke.

Yep. Can't be counterspelled, stopped by sight blockage, isn't locking you out of casting a spell with your action, and isn't limited to once per LR without burning resources. Misty step is great but it's a panic button that can't replace actual mobility.

Difficult terrain or getting knocked prone are super common in my games so movement is key.

[Gignere]

Bigger than having Misty Step always prepared on all Class Spell Lists not counting towards your Spells Known, with at least one free casting per day even if your Class can't cast spells at all?

Okydoke.



Granted it happens more than never. But I don't usually start my encounters exactly 30 ft. apart so it rarely comes up.



My players' Dwarves either:
- Dodge
- Ready a Melee Attack, or
- Use a Ranged Weapon

Spending at least half your turns just Dashing...I'd like to know more about that combat as a whole. :smallconfused:

It was a strength based Paladin and in any fights that the enemies uses kiting tactics the dwarf character found himself just lacking. I don’t even see how readying a melee attack works when you’re being outright kited by range attacks relying on their better movement.

You can pull out a thrown range weapon or try and hit with a -1 dex mod with a crossbow but that is a win for the enemies already when you’re a Paladin that relies on smites and melee attacks for the bulk of your damage. Like I said if your DM doesn’t use kiting battles you’re fine but in kiting battles the Paladin was just using dash to close and getting off his AoO hoping to contribute that way.

[diplomancer]

"If warranted" still makes the rule superfluous. If you don't roll because the DM agrees you're that good so autosuccess, 1 always fails never comes up. The DM is ignoring the rule. If you don't roll because the DM determines it's too hard for you so autofail, 20 always succeeds never comes up. The DM is ignoring the rule. If you do roll because the DM agrees it can go either way, if you roll a 1 you would have failed anyway and if you roll a 20 you would have succeeded anyway. The rule made no difference.

At best case the rule doesn't need to be there. Better to get rid of it and avoid all the confusion, angst, and arguing for those people who allegedly misinterpret the meaning.

You're making the mistake I pointed out in the previous thread: thinking only about ad hoc ability checks where the DM adjudicates on the spot the DC, and whether there IS a DC in the first place.

But that's not the only type of ability check in the game, and, for some tables at least, are probably not even the more frequent ones; there are plenty of ability checks where the DC is set by the game rules, be it:
-stealth checks against passive perception
-contested checks (which I think won't exist in next edition, among other reasons because they don't work well with the new rule we're discussing),
-several different spells where you have it either against the spell caster's save DC (like illusions or wrathful smite), or just a pre-set DC by the spell itself (like Maze),
-many spell-related rules, like counterspelling, identifying a spell, making a scroll, casting a spell from a scroll of a higher level than you can normally cast, etc.

For all these cases the new rule is very much relevant; the auto failure in more cases than I'd like (Halflings are now my favourite race), the autosuccess still relevant enough in cases like Maze against the Tarrasque.


It was a strength based Paladin and in any fights that the enemies uses kiting tactics the dwarf character found himself just lacking. I don’t even see how readying a melee attack works when you’re being outright kited by range attacks relying on their better movement.

You can pull out a thrown range weapon or try and hit with a -1 dex mod with a crossbow but that is a win for the enemies already when you’re a Paladin that relies on smites and melee attacks for the bulk of your damage. Like I said if your DM doesn’t use kiting battles you’re fine but in kiting battles the Paladin was just using dash to close and getting off his AoO hoping to contribute that way.

One thing that bothered me about Dwarves having 25' speed was that they are size medium; so they'd get the worst of both worlds, being slow and being unable to ride medium-sized mounts. I'd just houserule it to let them ride those mounts (Gimli didn't like at all being on a horse, always riding with Legolas, and Thorin and Co. all rode poneys). That would definitely improve the life of your Dwarf Paladin.

[Pex]

You're making the mistake I pointed out in the previous thread: thinking only about ad hoc ability checks where the DM adjudicates on the spot the DC, and whether there IS a DC in the first place.

But that's not the only type of ability check in the game, and, for some tables at least, are probably not even the more frequent ones; there are plenty of ability checks where the DC is set by the game rules, be it:
-stealth checks against passive perception
-contested checks (which I think won't exist in next edition, among other reasons because they don't work well with the new rule we're discussing),
-several different spells where you have it either against the spell caster's save DC (like illusions or wrathful smite), or just a pre-set DC by the spell itself (like Maze),
-many spell-related rules, like counterspelling, identifying a spell, making a scroll, casting a spell from a scroll of a higher level than you can normally cast, etc.

For all these cases the new rule is very much relevant; the auto failure in more cases than I'd like (Halflings are now my favourite race), the autosuccess still relevant enough in cases like Maze against the Tarrasque.



No one is bothered by the rule affecting saving throws. It means spellcasters can no longer autosucceed the more common DC 10 Concentration check when at +9 or higher, but no one is crying for spellcasters because of that.

The rule is bad when the DM isn't calling for checks. It's also bad for when he is because if there is a DC set by a module for example, if I can beat the DC by my modifier alone I should be that good I can't fail. I don't accept a flat 5% chance of failing existing at all. Conversely with 5% succeeding. I cannot, will not, must not defeat Michael Phelps in a swim race. You can think opposed checks aren't a thing anymore, but we don't know that. For now they exist and the rule is to be judged by that. Still, this isn't necessarily an opposed check against Michael Phelps. It can be a roll against a DC to swim across a river. If the river current or other conditions are poor enough Michael Phelps can fail to swim across, there is no way at all I could. Alas I roll the 20 and do. No.

[Psyren]

On the "DCs set in modules" thing, remember the DMG specifically lets you change those:


Difficulty Class

It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or saving throw when a rule or adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs.




Yep. Can't be counterspelled, stopped by sight blockage, isn't locking you out of casting a spell with your action, and isn't limited to once per LR without burning resources. Misty step is great but it's a panic button that can't replace actual mobility.

Difficult terrain or getting knocked prone are super common in my games so movement is key.

A lot of monster ranged abilities are 30ft as well. Being able to get into melee with such enemies without Dashing is important.

[diplomancer]

No one is bothered by the rule affecting saving throws. It means spellcasters can no longer autosucceed the more common DC 10 Concentration check when at +9 or higher, but no one is crying for spellcasters because of that.

None of the things I've mentioned are saving throws. All ability checks. And, just for the record, I'm actually against the auto-failure rule, even for Saving Throws. For casters, all it means is that now Warcaster is better than Res (con) in more cases. And even better is to have both, or to have Res (con) and be a Halfling.


The rule is bad when the DM isn't calling for checks. It's also bad for when he is because if there is a DC set by a module for example, if I can beat the DC by my modifier alone I should be that good I can't fail. I don't accept a flat 5% chance of failing existing at all. Conversely with 5% succeeding. I cannot, will not, must not defeat Michael Phelps in a swim race.


Which is why, in such a similar hypothetical situation happening in game, the DM would say "you lose. If you want to know how badly you lost, roll Athletics", and, if you rolled a 20, he'd say "you succeeded in the best swim of your life, you never thought you could swim that well. You still lost."

As I've said, I'm not a fan of the auto-failure rule either.

Still, your claim was that the rule was superfluous. It may be superfluous for ad hoc ability checks, but not for those typed of ability checks I've mentioned before. Once that is established, we can debate whether the rule is good (my opinion: no for auto-failure, yes for autosuccess).

[Pex]

None of the things I've mentioned are saving throws. All ability checks. And, just for the record, I'm actually against the auto-failure rule, even for Saving Throws. For casters, all it means is that now Warcaster is better than Res (con) in more cases. And even better is to have both, or to have Res (con) and be a Halfling.




Which is why, in such a similar hypothetical situation happening in game, the DM would say "you lose. If you want to know how badly you lost, roll Athletics", and, if you rolled a 20, he'd say "you succeeded in the best swim of your life, you never thought you could swim that well. You still lost."

As I've said, I'm not a fan of the auto-failure rule either.

Still, your claim was that the rule was superfluous. It may be superfluous for ad hoc ability checks, but not for those typed of ability checks I've mentioned before. Once that is established, we can debate whether the rule is good (my opinion: no for auto-failure, yes for autosuccess).

My claim that it was superfluous for ad hoc checks was the whole point, not the entirety of the rule being bad. The rule is bad for many reasons, that being one of them.

Why are you aggressively agreeing with me?

[KorvinStarmast]

I concur Fizban dragonborn was fine. What they did here was unnecessary and wrong. Ardling needs to go away. Make Aasimar Core. We have an accord. :smallsmile:

One thing to note here is that everyone else loses Inspiration on a long rest. Humans are the only one who "retain" it.This is good.

[Envyus]

I think we can keep Ardlings and Aassimar. The later are in Monsters of the Multiverse and work fine with the current rules.

[Zevox]

I think we can keep Ardlings and Aassimar. The later are in Monsters of the Multiverse and work fine with the current rules.
While I agree, I think the point isn't so much "don't ever print Ardlings" as "it doesn't make sense to pick Ardlings over Aasimar for the PHB specifically." I doubt anyone would bat an eye at Ardlings if this was a new expansion book they were dropping in; it's that it's a new version of the Player's Handbook, and they're there instead of the usual celestial-blooded race, that raises eyebrows and invites scrutiny on the rationale.

[Psyren]

I think we can keep Ardlings and Aassimar. The later are in Monsters of the Multiverse and work fine with the current rules.

Agreed.


While I agree, I think the point isn't so much "don't ever print Ardlings" as "it doesn't make sense to pick Ardlings over Aasimar for the PHB specifically." I doubt anyone would bat an eye at Ardlings if this was a new expansion book they were dropping in; it's that it's a new version of the Player's Handbook, and they're there instead of the usual celestial-blooded race, that raises eyebrows and invites scrutiny on the rationale.

I'd love to hear their definitive reasons for going with a new race instead of putting Aasimar in core, but I think the three reasons I floated previously all make sense.

[Arkhios]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Edit: Count as of 100 votes
28% Thumbs up
58% Thumbs down
14% Meh

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

To be fair, some of the thumbs-downs are against the current implementation/wording, not the general idea.

[Captain Cap]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.
And for me it isn't, here you have it.

[Arkhios]

And for me it isn't, here you have it.

My question still stands. What's wrong with you? :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

You're entitled to your opinion, but see the last 50 page thread. I imagine its largely the ability checks rather than the saves or attacks that earned the thumbs down but then again that was my perspective so im biased to think that

Edit: that said another 69 votes today which evened things a little

[stoutstien]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

One of the pitfalls of trying to use a single universal resolution mechanic. There's always going to be some parts of the game that people are unsatisfied with it.

[Mastikator]

IMO if rolling a 1 doesn't result in failure without auto failure, and if rolling 20 doesn't mean success without auto success then that means bounded accuracy has been broken. You shouldn't need such a rule, it should just work out that way.

One thing I fear is that adding such a rule may encourage some DMs to bring in some fumble tables to torture their players with. The price of fumble tables is fun at the table and the willing suspension of disbelief, these are not things you want to sacrifice, ever.

Edit- I would very much like to see some better recommendations for DMs for when to call for D20 tests. For example it should say "don't call for a test twice for the same task, just raise or lower the DC for the whole task". For complicated team efforts they should introduce skill challenges again. Skill challenges are fun. Rolling twice for the same task and getting a nat 1 and auto failing on something your character is specifically designed to be good at. That gets old really fast.

[Xervous]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

We’ve lacked this rule for skills for a decade and nobody is accusing 5e of being PF2e (do we pronounce that pfuh-too-ee?). D&Done isn’t shaping up with scaling DCs and modifiers with bunches of conditionals. There’s a lot more that could be changed to put it on a proper collision course with PF2e.

[Jervis]

I really hope they end up changing the crit rule. Naty 20 working on skill checks and gaining inspiration is waaaaaaay to much. If anything nat 1s should get inspiration because the autofail is more punishing. As is the crits make me want to not even play with these.

[Cheesegear]

Edit- I would very much like to see some better recommendations for DMs for when to call for D20 tests.

I would like to see more clarity on the player-facing side on when they "get to" roll.

Skill Check. A player makes a d20 Test. The DM may allow more players to make the check if the first player fails, at the DM's discretion.

Cooperative Skill Check. The DM allows two creatures to attempt the same Skill Check; One creature makes a d20 Test, with Advantage. If a '20' is rolled on a d20, only one creature performing the task is granted Inspiration. The player rolling the dice, chooses which creature get it. If both d20s roll a '20', both creatures are awarded Inspiration.

Skill Challenge. All creatures performing the task make a d20 Test. The players or DM may decide the order in which the Tests take place.

Group Skill Check. All creatures performing the task make a d20 Test. If at least half the creatures in the task pass, all creatures pass.

[Talamare]

Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Edit: Count as of 169 votes
34% Thumbs up
38% Thumbs down
28% Meh
169 Votes

...Nice

[Keravath]

It's good because everyone has a 5% chance to pass DC 21+ skill checks regardless of modifiers.
It's bad because everyone has a 5% chance to fail DC 5/10 skill checks regardless of modifiers.

Opposed Skill Checks get very...Weird. If that's the intent, okay. If that's not the intent, then that's bad.


'A test is warranted if the DC is between 5 and 30.'
This one sentence alone creates a problem for the sentence preceding it, which arguably allows - or forces - players to roll on any check they like, if the check has a DC. Potentially outside of the DM's control. Because it creates this scenario:

I, the DM, have determined that a d20 Test is not warranted, and I am right in all circumstances.
A d20 Test is warranted if the Test has a DC between 5 and 30, therefore, the DM is wrong in this circumstance.

This creates a contradiction that very badly needs to be cleared up. Assuming that the blue reading is correct:

The fact that a 1 always fails, and a 20 always passes, now effectively allows - or forces - every player (who wants to) to roll on every check because every player has a chance to pass or fail, which means that no roll is ever 100% not required - because there's actually a 5% chance that it is required. This will lead to a lot of wasted time because 19 out of 20 times it wont matter if the player rolled at all on a DC<5 or 21+ check. A slow game is a bad game. Please fix.

So whether or not rolling Crits is a good thing or not, for me, is actually determined by whether or not or how the quoted sentence above is removed or changed, because whilst DC 21+ checks don't come up all that often, DC 5 checks happen regularly. So that Nat 1 rule is actually a lot worse for players, than the Nat 20 rule is bad for DMs.

If the blue reading is not correct, then remove or change the words in that sentence.

My problems with it are similar but opposite the ones you mentioned :) (though I can see the issues with the reverse)

It is bad because ANY character can pass a DC30 check (no matter what modifiers)
It is good because ANY character can fail at a task (no matter what modifiers)

1) I think that there should be tasks at which only certain characters can succeed. As DM, I could gate this by only allowing certain characters to roll but this can result in arguments at the table when someone says "but my character should be able to do that too?". High DCs over 20 (now) can only be achieved by characters with high stats, proficiency, expertise or some combination. Removing that limitation means that the DM has to introduce house rules rather than using DCs to limit the characters who can succeed on a task.

2) Sometimes, no matter how good a character is at something, they will fail. A rogue with expertise and reliable talent will never fail a a DC less than 20 assuming that they have at least +2 in the relevant stat. By level 17 or so this goes up to DC 22-27 for stat +0 to +5. The rogue never fails a DC 27 task while no one else can ever succeed at it. Having an auto fail on 1 adds a bit of suspense to the die roll and allows the specialized character to occasionally (rarely) fail a task.

-------------

In addition, with auto-success on a d20 Test, the DM needs to be more careful about what they ask for rolls and what the effects of the rolls should be. Sometimes, DMs ask for rolls on tasks just to get an idea of how badly the situation will go rather than whether it will succeed or fail. This can happen in social situations where the DM knows that what the character is attempting will either succeed or fail but there is a range of outcomes possible in either case. The DM asks for a d20 roll in this case to guide the narrative without explaining to the players that situation doesn't require a check to determine success or failure only the degree of success or failure.

However, with auto-success or failure then the DM has to be explicit with the players exactly what any d20 roll is for since the players know that a 1 is an auto-fail and 20 auto-success but it is only the DM that knows what that means. For example, a character tries to convince a noble to give the party 10,000gp for their quest. The DM knows that this will fail but has the character roll d20 to see whether the noble has the guards throw them in the dungeon or merely laughs and has them escorted out of the castle. Success (from the character perspective) is never possible in this situation but the die is influencing how badly the failure goes.

What happens when the character rolls a 20 in this situation? To make the situation clear the DM has to state up front before the roll that the stated objective fails. The only question is how badly. Most DMs I know don't do that currently - they just narrate the result based on the die roll knowing that success in this case means what the DM decided before the roll not what the players might think they are rolling for. This works when the players do not know a 20 is an auto-success - the DC could have been something the characters could not achieve. However, with the d20 rule every DC is achievable by every player AND the players know that.

-----------

I understand the desire to have the same mechanic across all d20 Tests (why should to hit rolls be different?). However, characters make far more to hit rolls than any other die roll so the impact on the narrative of rolling a 1 or 20 on to hit is much less than skill checks AND there should be a mechanism for the DM to say that certain characters just can't succeed at certain checks while allowing others to shine.

One of the situations that bothers me is the narrative incongruity of the 8 intelligence barbarian knowing nothing about arcana (non proficient) rolling to figure out some details of a magical trap or magical device succeeding while the knowledge cleric 1/wizard X with high intelligence, years of experience, expertise in arcana fails. Sure, you could include the situation for comic relief but it isn't a narrative I generally like. The barbarian should not have a 1/20 chance of succeeding at such a task - it should either be much smaller or non existent.

[Psyren]

IMO if rolling a 1 doesn't result in failure without auto failure, and if rolling 20 doesn't mean success without auto success then that means bounded accuracy has been broken. You shouldn't need such a rule, it should just work out that way.

Indeed - this sums up the drum I've been banging on consistently since the previous thread.


One thing I fear is that adding such a rule may encourage some DMs to bring in some fumble tables to torture their players with. The price of fumble tables is fun at the table and the willing suspension of disbelief, these are not things you want to sacrifice, ever.

As long as WotC themselves never print any, I don't think that will be an issue. There's no real way to stop third parties from printing unsanctioned fumble tables/decks, but they're pretty easy for playgroups to ignore.



Rolling twice for the same task and getting a nat 1 and auto failing on something your character is specifically designed to be good at. That gets old really fast.



But as I mentioned in the first thread, a 5% flat failure rate is fairly catastrophic. Experts don't fail 5% of the time. Depending on your field of expertise, failing 1 out of every 20 times would get you fired pretty fast.


As a reminder, the DM is allowed to rule that "failing" a check means you still pull off the action, just with a penalty of some kind. PHB 174:

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective, or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

This is perhaps the best way to ensure that characters designed to be especially good at something can still fail checks without absurd, incompetent, or slapstick results. For example, a master thief failing their check to pick a lock under pressure might still bypass the lock (because they're just that good), but also make a loud noise in the process, and need to subsequently hide from curious guards.

EDIT: Added Cheesegear's quote as this applies to that as well.

[Cheesegear]

1) I think that there should be tasks at which only certain characters can succeed.

In theory, I agree. There should be some tasks that only certain characters can succeed at...


As DM, I could gate this by only allowing certain characters to roll but this can result in arguments at the table when someone says "but my character should be able to do that too?".

...But if I was to implement such a ruling, I would very, very, very much like a list of ways that a DM can make this happen:
- What is the character's Background?
- What is the character's Class?
- What is the character's modifier, representing their talent or skill, in said Skill - proficient or not?

The DM then points to this written list, and says 'You can't roll because I think this high-level Arcana check should be reserved for Warlocks and Wizards...And I'd give the Wizard first crack before I let the Warlock try...But the Warlock can try if the Wizard fails.'

The players then read the rule 'The DM can bar you from a Skill check, based on your Class.' Oh, okay. Fair enough.

Instead of 'Where's the rule saying I can't roll a dice? The DM is a Jerk. This is the fourth time he's barred me from rolling and The DM hates me, specifically. This game is unfair.'


2) Sometimes, no matter how good a character is at something, they will fail.
[...]
Having an auto fail on 1 adds a bit of suspense to the die roll and allows the specialized character to occasionally (rarely) fail a task.

Again, I agree in theory. Experts fail, sometimes. Sometimes, palms get sweaty.

But as I mentioned in the first thread, a 5% flat failure rate is fairly catastrophic. Experts don't fail 5% of the time. Depending on your field of expertise, failing 1 out of every 20 times would get you fired pretty fast.

Having +11 to a Skill, and still managing to fail any DC 5 task, at a rate of 5%, means you are not an expert...Though I could see that as a rule; Expertise means you no longer fail that Skill Check on a '1'. Maybe.

Point is, I agree that everyone has a chance to fail. But a d20 ain't it, chief. If one of the limitations of D&D is that it's built around d20s (and it is), then autofailing on a '1' isn't a good rule to represent what you think you're representing, and thus is a bad rule. On the DM's side, setting a DC of 21+ and having characters Just Pass, isn't right. Again, I agree that sometimes characters should get lucky (:smallamused:). But a flat 5% Luck rate, isn't it.

Ooh. There you go; 5% Luck feels like too much Luck.

[Telok]

'You can't roll because I think this high-level Arcana check should be reserved for Warlocks and Wizards...And I'd give the Wizard first crack before I let the Warlock try...But the Warlock can try if the Wizard fails.'

Why warlock? They're charisma characters who get magic from playing patty cake with any random magic **** that crawls out from under a rock. They're more likely to have 10 int & no arcana or knowledge prof than they are to be "scholars of arcane knowledge". Half the time the onlt diff between them and the barbarian is 10 int vs 8 int. Or are making broad generic often wrong assumptions about characters abilities based on their class again? Maybe we'd better just ban dexadins & str rogues in order to make the mechanics work right?

Re: movement 25 vs 30
Not a meaningful buff. You basically have to have a specific setup (slow melee pcs, fast monster, strong monster ranged attack, weak all pcs ranged abilities, big open area, no meaningful cover) for it to matter more than once in a blue moon. Its never been an issue for our groups or me, and I've played nothing but speed 25 pcs this edition. Someone in the party always has some ranged ability, a bow build, eb spam, spells, barb charge, druid, someone even had a rogue/fighter dwarf once who could action surge across the entire map bunny hopping terrain the whole way.

[Psyren]

Why warlock? They're charisma characters who get magic from playing patty cake with any random magic **** that crawls out from under a rock. They're more likely to have 10 int & no arcana or knowledge prof than they are to be "scholars of arcane knowledge". Half the time the onlt diff between them and the barbarian is 10 int vs 8 int. Or are making broad generic often wrong assumptions about characters abilities based on their class again? Maybe we'd better just ban dexadins & str rogues in order to make the mechanics work right?

It doesn't have to be "generic"; the DM and players can get as specific as they want with their backstories and upbringing when it comes to bypassing checks during the campaign.

Using an OotS analogy, Durkon and Minrah knowing anything about the Eastern Pantheon would likely have been an impossibly difficult Religion/History check for most of the comic, because the remaining gods actively hide information about them from each new world they create. But now that the two clerics have met Thor and learned about them directly, any of the knowledge he shared wouldn't require a check from those two either, because now they simply know it.



Re: movement 25 vs 30
Not a meaningful buff. You basically have to have a specific setup (slow melee pcs, fast monster, strong monster ranged attack, weak all pcs ranged abilities, big open area, no meaningful cover) for it to matter more than once in a blue moon. Its never been an issue for our groups or me, and I've played nothing but speed 25 pcs this edition. Someone in the party always has some ranged ability, a bow build, eb spam, spells, barb charge, druid, someone even had a rogue/fighter dwarf once who could action surge across the entire map bunny hopping terrain the whole way.

That it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The simple fact is that many ranged abilities and spells in this game have a 30' range, while few to none have 25', so situations where the latter is a meaningful limitation compared to the former are not difficult to conceive. Moreover, having alternatives to moving into melee is good, but being able to choose both depending on the situation is even better.

An even bigger consideration you're not accounting for is the round-down rule (PHB 7), which states that fractions get rounded down unless otherwise stated. This means that if you're in a situation where your move speed is halved, e.g. Difficult Terrain or the new Slowed condition, a 30' move will get you to three squares, but a 25' move will get you to 2 squares. The tactical implications of this can be huge depending on what effects are present on the battlefield.

[Keravath]

Going to throw this out again if anybody cares to take a look at it. My mediocre thoughts. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25556791&postcount=733)

Just letting you know that at least one person read it :)

Comments:
- The Lucky feat is significantly stronger than it used to be. It wasn't a great feat but with proficiency uses/day instead of just 3 it becomes much more attractive especially at higher levels.

- Adding a feat to a background is fine and will cut down on the folks who take Variant Human and Custom Lineage to get that feat they really want early. This means that character concepts will tend to come together better by level 4/8 instead of 8/12. It does represent power creep though. It also might help folks choose the race that fits their concept better rather than the one that gets a feat at level 1.

- The maximum modifier with regular stats is +5 +6 x2 (for expertise) = +17. Rogues are particularly good at this and will pass DC30 checks on a 13 (not 19). You can also add in situational modifiers like guidance (+d4) or advantage (from a number of sources) or features like reliable talent or Silver Tongue (Eloquence bard) which gives a minimum roll of 10. The new rules don't answer whether the class features which change any roll less than a 9 into a 10 would supercede the auto-failure of a 1. As currently written, the class features would take precedence as more specific since they also specifically reference the roll "you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10"

- giving out inspiration on a 20 roll is just a way to give out inspiration more often since a lot of DMs (myself included) often forget about the mechanic and don't give it out as often as we might.

[Keravath]

In theory, I agree. There should be some tasks that only certain characters can succeed at...



...But if I was to implement such a ruling, I would very, very, very much like a list of ways that a DM can make this happen:
- What is the character's Background?
- What is the character's Class?
- What is the character's modifier, representing their talent or skill, in said Skill - proficient or not?

The DM then points to this written list, and says 'You can't roll because I think this high-level Arcana check should be reserved for Warlocks and Wizards...And I'd give the Wizard first crack before I let the Warlock try...But the Warlock can try if the Wizard fails.'

The players then read the rule 'The DM can bar you from a Skill check, based on your Class.' Oh, okay. Fair enough.

Instead of 'Where's the rule saying I can't roll a dice? The DM is a Jerk. This is the fourth time he's barred me from rolling and The DM hates me, specifically. This game is unfair.'



Again, I agree in theory. Experts fail, sometimes. Sometimes, palms get sweaty.

But as I mentioned in the first thread, a 5% flat failure rate is fairly catastrophic. Experts don't fail 5% of the time. Depending on your field of expertise, failing 1 out of every 20 times would get you fired pretty fast.

Having +11 to a Skill, and still managing to fail any DC 5 task, at a rate of 5%, means you are not an expert...Though I could see that as a rule; Expertise means you no longer fail that Skill Check on a '1'. Maybe.

Point is, I agree that everyone has a chance to fail. But a d20 ain't it, chief. If one of the limitations of D&D is that it's built around d20s (and it is), then autofailing on a '1' isn't a good rule to represent what you think you're representing, and thus is a bad rule. On the DM's side, setting a DC of 21+ and having characters Just Pass, isn't right. Again, I agree that sometimes characters should get lucky (:smallamused:). But a flat 5% Luck rate, isn't it.

Ooh. There you go; 5% Luck feels like too much Luck.

I agree :) having auto success or failure on any d20 Test on a 1 or 20 is, in many cases, "too much luck", good or bad. Combat rolls are so common and creature hit points large enough that it doesn't have much impact on to hit rolls in combat.

However, skill checks are much less frequent and the results are often very significant to the ongoing narrative - so much so that auto success and failure could be too impactful.

Finally, saving throws would also likely be fine with auto fail on a 1 and auto success on a 20. Spell DCs are rarely over 20 so the impact of auto success is smaller. The biggest impact here would likely be on repeated concentration saving throws from smaller effects like upcast magic missile against targets with a +9 con save or better - which takes a bit of work.

[MisterD]

With the Dragonborn rollback. Are they trying to disregard their own previous books?

[stoutstien]

With the Dragonborn rollback. Are they trying to disregard their own previous books?
Money on copy paste error

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Money on copy paste error

That, or they are going to retool the action economy to be
2 actions*
Bonus action
Reacation

*can't take more than one "Attack Action" or more than one "Move Action" in a single turn

In effect if the remove a dedicated move action, you would be allowed to take the "Attack Action" and then use your breath weapon as your other action instead of moving

[Zevox]

I'd love to hear their definitive reasons for going with a new race instead of putting Aasimar in core, but I think the three reasons I floated previously all make sense.
We've had that conversation already, and will just have to agree to disagree, because my reaction to those reasons is basically "but you could accomplish the same goals much better by going with the Aasimar plus an actual animal person race."

For what it's worth, I discussed One D&D with my group at our session last weekend (none of whom were aware it had been announced), and they were of like mind. Our current DM in particular was kind of exicted about Ardlings when he first read the part about them being an animal-headed race, since he does quite like animal-person races (to the point of having several homebrew ones of his own), but was immediately greatly disappointed when he found out that their actual game abilities were all based on their celestial heritage, not animalistic at all.


Curious so threw together a quick poll for 1 and 20 thing.

https://take.quiz-maker.com/poll4443519xF1A84D98-139

Edit: Count as of 199 votes
34% Thumbs up
41% Thumbs down
25% Meh
I'm in the odd spot of not knowing how to respond to a poll on this. My group already plays with this as the rule, so obviously we're happy with it - but by the same token, whether or not it's official is meaningless to us, as we'll keep doing so regardless. So, I could honestly answer either thumbs up because I like it, "meh" because what's official doesn't affect us, or even thumbs down because it won't affect us one way or the other but it clearly bothers other people, and I would theoretically favor leaving the official rule as-is if it makes more people happy.

[Kane0]

I honestly wasnt expecting more than 50 responses in the first place, and i'm not a good poll-maker.
I suppose since you already used that rule before the UA you would be a thumbs up, bevause thats what you want?

[PhoenixPhyre]

That, or they are going to retool the action economy to be
2 actions*
Bonus action
Reacation

*can't take more than one "Attack Action" or more than one "Move Action" in a single turn

In effect if the remove a dedicated move action, you would be allowed to take the "Attack Action" and then use your breath weapon as your other action instead of moving

At the cost of going back to 3e's borked "can't split your move" thing. Which was stupid and justifiably died in a fire.

[diplomancer]

I honestly wasnt expecting more than 50 responses in the first place, and i'm not a good poll-maker.
I suppose since you already used that rule before the UA you would be a thumbs up, bevause thats what you want?

For what it's worth, I answered "meh". Not too happy about automatic failure, think automatic success is mostly good, and what's problematic about it can be handled by more advice to DMs.

[Psyren]

We've had that conversation already, and will just have to agree to disagree, because my reaction to those reasons is basically "but you could accomplish the same goals much better by going with the Aasimar plus an actual animal person race."

For what it's worth, I discussed One D&D with my group at our session last weekend (none of whom were aware it had been announced), and they were of like mind. Our current DM in particular was kind of exicted about Ardlings when he first read the part about them being an animal-headed race, since he does quite like animal-person races (to the point of having several homebrew ones of his own), but was immediately greatly disappointed when he found out that their actual game abilities were all based on their celestial heritage, not animalistic at all.

Noted. My group thought the idea was cool.

Question: would it help if Ardlings got, say, free Perception or Darkvision to represent an animal's sharper senses? I'd be willing to compromise on that in the survey.

[animorte]

I'm in the odd spot of not knowing how to respond to a poll on this. My group already plays with this as the rule, so obviously we're happy with it - but by the same token, whether or not it's official is meaningless to us, as we'll keep doing so regardless. So, I could honestly answer either thumbs up because I like it, "meh" because what's official doesn't affect us, or even thumbs down because it won't affect us one way or the other but it clearly bothers other people, and I would theoretically favor leaving the official rule as-is if it makes more people happy.

I agree with this very much. That's been my thought the entire time. If you don't like it, don't use it. I particularly like your last bit though. If it's such a problem, it's probably better left alone.

Also, I love your avatar!

[Dienekes]

At the cost of going back to 3e's borked "can't split your move" thing. Which was stupid and justifiably died in a fire.

Why would making two Actions require that when choosing the Move Action means you have to take it all in one go?

Seems basically trivial to write it as:

If you take the Move action, you can move up to your Speed over the course of the rest of your Turn.

To the point it seems odd to think it would be written in any other way, since we're still basing it off 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why would making two Actions require that when choosing the Move Action means you have to take it all in one go?

Seems basically trivial to write it as:

If you take the Move action, you can move up to your Speed over the course of the rest of your Turn.

To the point it seems odd to think it would be written in any other way, since we're still basing it off 5e.

Because that's how it's worked in every single D&D-like that has ever used that structure (having an explicit Move action)? And because actions, by default, are atomic?

As you say, you'd need special cases on the Move action (that would also be a significant change from what currently exists[1]) AND would open things up to "take the Attack action twice" unless you added even more special cases. All for...exactly zero benefit that I can see.

[1] since it would mean you could move during the Cast a Spell action, which you can't do currently, among other things.

[Pex]

What on earth is wrong with people? 5% chance to succeed or fail automatically is what makes rolling a d20 worth it. It's always FUN, regardless of which one rolls.

Please don't make this game into another Pathfinder 2e :smallsigh:

Because no, it's not fun to fail a check I shouldn't fail. I want to be that good at a particular task. I put the time, effort, and build choices to make that happen and want to enjoy the fruit of that labor.

[Doug Lampert]

That it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The simple fact is that many ranged abilities and spells in this game have a 30' range, while few to none have 25', so situations where the latter is a meaningful limitation compared to the former are not difficult to conceive. Moreover, having alternatives to moving into melee is good, but being able to choose both depending on the situation is even better.

I'm finding it difficult to see why a 30' range attack by the foes is a problem for the 25' mover.

They shoot from 30', I move 25', am now 5' away, and melee attack the exact same way I would if I had a 30' move.

Now, if the foes move in, shoot, then move out, then I may have an advantage for 30' over 25', but it's extremely situational because 30' ALSO is not likely to be enough to get in range of that.

[Kane0]

I'm finding it difficult to see why a 30' range attack by the foes is a problem for the 25' mover.


Any sort of kiting and/or obstruction comes to mind. If you're slower than the person that wants to stay out of your reach you job becomes that much harder.

[Zevox]

Noted. My group thought the idea was cool.

Question: would it help if Ardlings got, say, free Perception or Darkvision to represent an animal's sharper senses? I'd be willing to compromise on that in the survey.
Personally? No, because I think that's about the blandest possible way to try to represent animal abilities, since Darkvision is extremely common among player races for a variety of reasons, and perception proficiency isn't much more special. I won't presume to speak for my DM on the matter, though I suspect he'd prefer something else, too.

Moreover, I don't expect them to want to give the Ardling any animal-based racial traits, since they're just not animal-people. They're celestial blooded folk inspired by Egyptian/Hindu mythology, where celestial beings often have animal heads.


Also, I love your avatar!
Thank you, though as my signature notes, all credit to the artist that created it, Dirtytabs. :smallsmile:

[Telok]

It doesn't have to be "generic"; the DM and players can get as specific as they want with their backstories and upbringing when it comes to bypassing checks during the campaign.

Using an OotS analogy,....

....An even bigger consideration you're not accounting for is the round-down rule (PHB 7), which states that fractions get rounded down unless otherwise stated. This means that if you're in a situation where your move speed is halved, e.g. Difficult Terrain or the new Slowed condition, a 30' move will get you to three squares, but a 25' move will get you to 2 squares. The tactical implications of this can be huge depending on what effects are present on the battlefield.

You're still assuming that DMs have PC backstory memorized or on a quick reference sheet or something. You might, but no DM I've ever played with has managed to consistently keep 4-5 characters backstories in mind all the time. What I have commonly seen for years, as I quoted in the post from the other person, is DMs making absolute assumptiins & decisions about your character & abilities based solely on class. Any specific backstory means bupkis at an AL table. We won't see gating based on backstory, it will almost always be based on proficency or the DM's default assumptions about the character class.

On movement: its one square. Even at half move its one square, at quarter move there's no difference. I can count the times its mattered in my entire group over the last two years on one hand. You're getting to the point of having to posit specific types of enemies with a specific type of attack using one specific tactic in one type of encounter aimed at one specific character type (melee combat only & incapable of adapting their own tactics) to try and justify the smallest possible movement increase as being some big buff. It isn't big. Its about the smallest possible "buff" you could give. It's like giving a race +1/2 prof temp hp each long rest and claiming it changes anything.

[Ortho]

That, or they are going to retool the action economy to be
2 actions*
Bonus action
Reacation

*can't take more than one "Attack Action" or more than one "Move Action" in a single turn

In effect if the remove a dedicated move action, you would be allowed to take the "Attack Action" and then use your breath weapon as your other action instead of moving

This is the first I'm hearing of this. What's wrong with the current Action/Bonus/Reaction system?

[Psyren]

You're still assuming that DMs have PC backstory memorized or on a quick reference sheet or something. You might, but no DM I've ever played with has managed to consistently keep 4-5 characters backstories in mind all the time. What I have commonly seen for years, as I quoted in the post from the other person, is DMs making absolute assumptiins & decisions about your character & abilities based solely on class. Any specific backstory means bupkis at an AL table. We won't see gating based on backstory, it will almost always be based on proficency or the DM's default assumptions about the character class.

So you don't plan out your sessions at all? If it's an important roll, I'm going to think about who I'm expecting to be able to do it before that session to keep the plot moving. If I was running a Fellowship of the Ring campaign and we got to the part where Gandalf was dead (70-year spoiler alert), I wouldn't hinge the entire session around Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli passing a tough Arcana check to progress.



On movement: its one square.

One square can be the difference between you eating another round of an AoE effect or not, or getting away from a nasty creature's reach, or getting out of dodge so that your party can nuke the area without worrying about killing you. Again, if it doesn't matter to you that's totally fine, houserule the 25ft move for small races back in, but it does matter to others.

[stoutstien]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. What's wrong with the current Action/Bonus/Reaction system?

Mostly bonus actions but reactions could use some work as well.

[Brookshw]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. What's wrong with the current Action/Bonus/Reaction system?

/Shrug, what's an edition change without breaking action economy? It's traditional.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. What's wrong with the current Action/Bonus/Reaction system?

Nothing is wrong with current action economy. If I recall correctly a review of PF2e said that they made a similar change since you might not move every round. It's unlikely wotc is going to make any changes in this area, but if they did, it would increase the use of other combat actions like dodge, dash, and help

[Talamare]

This is the first I'm hearing of this. What's wrong with the current Action/Bonus/Reaction system?
I've read an article a while ago about the core issue with this system being that they didn't properly utilize the Bonus action space.

Some Bonus Actions are minor. Some Bonus Actions are insane. Some classes have no real Bonus Actions at all; which feels awful compared to the classes with really strong Bonus Actions.

Then there are the whole rules section of Bonus Action Spellcasting.

Basically, if they remove the Bonus Action system, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Leon]

Money on copy paste error

Don't disallow for eating paste error


Basically, if they remove the Bonus Action system, I wouldn't be surprised.

I'd not be surprised as its easier to remove a thing than to work to make it better balanced. There is a bit of bloat in the BA department for some classes and a dearth for others so to find he middle ground would take some creativity and WotC have indicated that being creative is not a strong point of theirs.

[Jervis]

Noted. My group thought the idea was cool.

Question: would it help if Ardlings got, say, free Perception or Darkvision to represent an animal's sharper senses? I'd be willing to compromise on that in the survey.

That is another issue I have with ardlings, they feel kind of half baked. Some more animal like features would benefit them I think. I’d honestly rather them loose the fly speed and keep that a Aasimar trait, letting ardlings have more animal things that make them feel more grounded. It would also make it easier to reflavor them to work better in settings where the planar cosmology is different and outsiders mingling with people from the material plane is less common.

[Telok]

So you don't plan out your sessions at all? If it's an important roll, I'm going to think about who I'm expecting to be able to do it before that session to keep the plot moving.

Nope. Of course I don't bother to DM D&D any more. Anything I want to do with D&D I can do with AD&D, and theres tons of stuff D&D does badly. I prep sandboxy campaigns before any characters are rolled. I know the places, the important people, and the state of the game. Players are the active randomizer that makes the fun stuff happen (well last campaign, based on that there's like 6 different doom clocks going now).

Like they'll have to deal with ork bureaucracy for a permit (or go criminal from the start, got a handle on that too). First one has an in box, out box, and marinate box on the desk. Its easy checks to get to the supervisor who'll be hard checks or trial by combat. If a character gets made that crushes social combat, great! If they go criminal and go for forgeries & theft, great! If 4 to 6 characters can't even make one easy social or bribery check (mind boggling but possible) I happen to have a local mind flayer from the embassy who has just what they need (and a tick on the "manipulate & corrupt an adventuring party" doom clock, yay).

Of course, thats in a system that doesn't get stupid or silly if I accidentally call for "too many" checks or ask me to decide someone can't roll because of something about their character I may be mis-remembering.

[Psyren]

Nope. Of course I don't bother to DM D&D any more. Anything I want to do with D&D I can do with AD&D, and theres tons of stuff D&D does badly. I prep sandboxy campaigns before any characters are rolled. I know the places, the important people, and the state of the game. Players are the active randomizer that makes the fun stuff happen (well last campaign, based on that there's like 6 different doom clocks going now).

Well to respond to your objection, planning challenges between sessions is how I can make sure each player has major chances to shine, without stopping the game to refresh myself on everyone's proficiencies and backgrounds. I don't do this with every single roll I call for, but definitely the big ones that end up driving the plot.

Moreover, in most of my campaigns proficiencies are intuitive. It's not impossible that I'll get a weightlifting kobold sorcerer, or an erudite goliath berserker who majored in history and the arcane, but generally speaking it doesn't come up; the few times it does, those characters tend to stand out, which makes them memorable anyway.

[Telok]

Well to respond to your objection, planning challenges between sessions is how I can make sure each player has major chances to shine, without stopping the game to refresh myself on everyone's proficiencies and backgrounds. I don't do this with every single roll I call for, but definitely the big ones that end up driving the plot.

Moreover, in most of my campaigns proficiencies are intuitive. It's not impossible that I'll get a weightlifting kobold sorcerer, or an erudite goliath berserker who majored in history and the arcane, but generally speaking it doesn't come up; the few times it does, those characters tend to stand out, which makes them memorable anyway.

Good for you. Its nice you can remember character details and make sure people can't roll if it doesn't fit your story. I want to use my DMing mind space to track more world stuff, describe things better, and not have to worry if I'm correctly recalling "that guy"'s third character's background. But as a D&D player I don't see how that helps the novice DMs I've run across or the DMs who can't remember 6 PCs worth of backstory details.

I don't see how your ability to work the system helps the DMs who are working on presumed class=character personality & background. They're out there DMing and learning the hard way of disappointment & fail when unhappy players walk out on them. I just don't see how your being good with the status quo helps them to DM better. I'd be happy if the game had a bunch of training wheels & simplicity for newcomers ans the experts could add or drop the stuff they wanted more or less of. Don't see that happening though. The forumites answering surveys are the elites of D&D and we'll likely be getting more complexity, more feats, more spells, more subclasses. But there won't be a first chapter in the DMG titled "everything you need to run a good game as a brand new DM".

[Psyren]

Good for you. Its nice you can remember character details and make sure people can't roll if it doesn't fit your story. I want to use my DMing mind space to track more world stuff, describe things better, and not have to worry if I'm correctly recalling "that guy"'s third character's background. But as a D&D player I don't see how that helps the novice DMs I've run across or the DMs who can't remember 6 PCs worth of backstory details.

I don't see how your ability to work the system helps the DMs who are working on presumed class=character personality & background. They're out there DMing and learning the hard way of disappointment & fail when unhappy players walk out on them. I just don't see how your being good with the status quo helps them to DM better. I'd be happy if the game had a bunch of training wheels & simplicity for newcomers ans the experts could add or drop the stuff they wanted more or less of. Don't see that happening though. The forumites answering surveys are the elites of D&D and we'll likely be getting more complexity, more feats, more spells, more subclasses. But there won't be a first chapter in the DMG titled "everything you need to run a good game as a brand new DM".

If you want a story where everyone can roll for everything, there's nothing wrong with that. But with bounded accuracy, you're going to get some unexpected or incongruous results that way eventually, even without the 20/1 rule (and definitely with it.)

If that's an issue, gating checks is the easiest solution.
If that's not an issue - great.

[Captain Cap]

But with bounded accuracy, you're going to get some unexpected or incongruous results that way eventually, even without the 20/1 rule (and definitely with it.
The CD range 5-30 has plenty of room for the 20/1 rule to be relevant. Whatever bounded accuracy will mean in the new edition, PCs with no training will still be a thing, so the possibility of automatic successes will always matter for the range 20-30; at the same time, for CD 30 to have a reason to exist trained PCs should be able to reach a +10 bonus, for which the range 5-10 would be susceptible to automatic failures.

Changing subject, something I've just realized: now that Grapple and Shove are melee attacks, worn armor protects against them?! Doesn't it sound ridiculous? I know d&d isn't really simulationist, but c'mon, they could at least put some thought in their obsessive quest for minimum complexity.

[Talamare]

The CD range 5-30 has plenty of room for the 20/1 rule to be relevant. Whatever bounded accuracy will mean in the new edition, PCs with no training will still be a thing, so the possibility of automatic successes will always matter for the range 20-30; at the same time, for CD 30 to have a reason to exist trained PCs should be able to reach a +10 bonus, for which the range 5-10 would be susceptible to automatic failures.

Changing subject, something I've just realized: now that Grapple and Shove are melee attacks, worn armor protects against them?! Doesn't it sound ridiculous? I know d&d isn't really simulationist, but c'mon, they could at least put some thought in their obsessive quest for minimum complexity.

Man, you're right!

Also, you know what's weird?
Having High DEX is like basically the same as having Platemail armor!

Completely insane notion. Let's fix these in 1 go.

Okay, Let's see Max AC from DEX should probably be around 13 or 14, that seems about accurate for how well dodging in Leather Armor will keep you alive in a Battlefield. 18 AC from Platemail seems about correct.

I know! Let's completely remove DEX from AC, and make Grapple require a Dex Save

[Psyren]

The CD range 5-30 has plenty of room for the 20/1 rule to be relevant. Whatever bounded accuracy will mean in the new edition, PCs with no training will still be a thing, so the possibility of automatic successes will always matter for the range 20-30; at the same time, for CD 30 to have a reason to exist trained PCs should be able to reach a +10 bonus, for which the range 5-10 would be susceptible to automatic failures.

I know it's relevant :smallconfused: but some people are complaining about the possibility of, say, a bodybuilder barbarian failing to break down a door while a weak wizard gets a 20 and knocks it off its hinges. Saying the wizard automatically fails prevents that from happening in both cases.



Changing subject, something I've just realized: now that Grapple and Shove are melee attacks, worn armor protects against them?! Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

What's wrong with that? It's easily explained as making it harder for them to get a good grip on you. If they do, getting out is still a strength or dex save.

[Asmotherion]

I am pleased with what I've seen so far. Especially the whole "Backround determines your Bonuses" stuff.

[Telok]

I know it's relevant :smallconfused: but some people are complaining about the possibility of, say, a bodybuilder barbarian failing to break down a door while a weak wizard gets a 20 and knocks it off its hinges. Saying the wizard automatically fails prevents that from happening in both cases.

What my thing has always been is the less experienced DMs hitting a bit in a module that has a DC attached and understanding it as the module writer wanting a roll for that thing, or they can't decide if the the characters should succeed and call for rolls. Building the game in such a way that the dice mechanic gives silly or stupid results to inexperienced DMs or those DMs who can't on the spot recall all characters relevant backstory is... lets say "suboptimal". I'm feeling generous today.

But I also understand it won't change. There will be a couple general advice paragraphs somewhere half way through the DMG and people's response to "why doesn't this just work?" will be "get gud noob" and "watch several hours of youtube videos to fix your stupid illiterate **** ups".

[PhoenixPhyre]

What my thing has always been is the less experienced DMs hitting a bit in a module that has a DC attached and understanding it as the module writer wanting a roll for that thing, or they can't decide if the the characters should succeed and call for rolls. Building the game in such a way that the dice mechanic gives silly or stupid results to inexperienced DMs or those DMs who can't on the spot recall all characters relevant backstory is... lets say "suboptimal". I'm feeling generous today.

But I also understand it won't change. There will be a couple general advice paragraphs somewhere half way through the DMG and people's response to "why doesn't this just work?" will be "get gud noob" and "watch several hours of youtube videos to fix your stupid illiterate **** ups".

It seems there's a disconnect here. You're famously in favor of players having to know the rules inside and out and having no sympathy for people who just want a simple martial experience. Yet you're also hyper over-protective of DMs that don't even bother to read the very basics (and yes, setting DCs is the very basics) and just want them to have it all handed to them.

Frankly, my position is the opposite. If you've signed up to DM, you've inherently signed up to learn how to run the game. And that's going to take some homework[1]. Players? Their involvement is mostly limited to game time.

[1] No, watching youtube videos doesn't help. Everything you need is right there in Chapter 8. And this is not rocket science, nor is it even social science. It's basic reading. The expected way is literally trivial, because whether you choose 10, 15, or 20 doesn't really matter as long as you're
a) thinking about consequences and not making people roll for things that don't have meaningful as defined by you consequences
b) erring on the side of letting people do cool things.
c) with a group who isn't trying to "win D&D". And aren't doing that yourself. This last part is critical--with a tolerant, trusting group, the thresholds for "it works" are huge.

[Psyren]

What my thing has always been is the less experienced DMs hitting a bit in a module that has a DC attached and understanding it as the module writer wanting a roll for that thing, or they can't decide if the the characters should succeed and call for rolls. Building the game in such a way that the dice mechanic gives silly or stupid results to inexperienced DMs or those DMs who can't on the spot recall all characters relevant backstory is... lets say "suboptimal". I'm feeling generous today.

But I also understand it won't change. There will be a couple general advice paragraphs somewhere half way through the DMG and people's response to "why doesn't this just work?" will be "get gud noob" and "watch several hours of youtube videos to fix your stupid illiterate **** ups".

You keep regurgitating things like "recall all the characters' relevant backstory" and refuse to consider that the vast majority of checks in the game don't need to care about that.

Yes, deciphering the ancient tome of Magius who last faced the Big Bad Lichimus Maximus centuries ago for the key to defeating him, might involve a relevant hook in your rogue's backstory, because he happens to be Magius' long-lost descendant. But merely figuring out that the runes over each of the three doors in Sidequest Dungeon mean "yo, there's a trap here dawg" does not need you to memorize anyone's backstory. In other words, if you think keeping track of everyone's backstory before deciding on a check is onerous, good news - you're not supposed to be using those all the time. Learning how to set simple/routine checks that are backstory-agnostic is basic DMing in this game.


It seems there's a disconnect here. You're famously in favor of players having to know the rules inside and out and having no sympathy for people who just want a simple martial experience. Yet you're also hyper over-protective of DMs that don't even bother to read the very basics (and yes, setting DCs is the very basics) and just want them to have it all handed to them.

Frankly, my position is the opposite. If you've signed up to DM, you've inherently signed up to learn how to run the game. And that's going to take some homework[1]. Players? Their involvement is mostly limited to game time.

[1] No, watching youtube videos doesn't help. Everything you need is right there in Chapter 8. And this is not rocket science, nor is it even social science. It's basic reading. The expected way is literally trivial, because whether you choose 10, 15, or 20 doesn't really matter as long as you're
a) thinking about consequences and not making people roll for things that don't have meaningful as defined by you consequences
b) erring on the side of letting people do cool things.
c) with a group who isn't trying to "win D&D". And aren't doing that yourself. This last part is critical--with a tolerant, trusting group, the thresholds for "it works" are huge.

This.

[Kane0]

I know it's relevant :smallconfused: but some people are complaining about the possibility of, say, a bodybuilder barbarian failing to break down a door while a weak wizard gets a 20 and knocks it off its hinges. Saying the wizard automatically fails prevents that from happening in both cases.

The DM is the world, its inhabitants, its deities, its trees. But for all that DM is, he is not the PCs.

The players get to decide what their characters can and do attempt to do. If you allow one player to attempt knocking down a DC25 door or deciphering a DC 25 manuscript then also deny another character the same opportunity you better have a damn good reason for it or it wont go down well.

[stoutstien]

The DM is the world, its inhabitants, its deities, its trees. But for all that DM is, he is not the PCs.

The players get to decide what their characters can and do attempt to do. If you allow one player to attempt knocking down a DC25 door or deciphering a DC 25 manuscript then also deny another character the same opportunity you better have a damn good reason for it or it wont go down well.

"You don't have the capacity" seems fair and quick enough. If you wouldn't pass on a 20 plus maybe 5 from secondary bonuses then you probably shouldn't roll or if you do you have disadvantage.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"You don't have the capacity" seems fair and quick enough. If you wouldn't pass on a 20 plus maybe 5 from secondary bonuses then you probably shouldn't roll or if you do you have disadvantage.

Bolded is what makes it a fairly arbitrary distinction in my book, and part of the reason "succeed on a 20 in spite of your modifiers" is a problem, because if your rationale revolves around a lack of modifiers rather than strict impossibility then someone is going to feel burned in the interaction.

That said I agree "it's not possible for you" should be a perfectly good reason, however if the roll is somehow possible and it always will be if a 20 succeeds then that's not a good enough reason.

[Cheesegear]

"You don't have the capacity" seems fair and quick enough.

'You chose wrong at character creation.' seems fair, but also Feels Bad and leads to arguments. Especially if the DM doesn't make challenges well, equally.

Yeah, the Wizard needs to decipher the Arcana check to understand the Lich's curse. Sure.

But as you're going through the Lich's Lair, the Barbarian asks 'Where are all huge, ice-frozen doors at, for me? When do I get a challenge that I'm good at?'

The DM says; 'Uhh...This is a Lich's Lair, it'll be mostly Arcana and Religion checks, probably, and the occasional Investigation.'

*Barbarian is now on their phone and no longer caring. Wake them up when combat starts.*

IME, telling players that they can't be involved, means they wont be.


That said I agree "it's not possible for you" should be a perfectly good reason

It is a perfectly good reason, narratively. Unfortunately, in a game that requires participation and takes a heavy toll on players' attention spans, it's not something you can actually say though, because that's a green light for the player to acquire Feels Bad and check out.

[Talamare]

Anyone know Arthur from Fire Force; how he's the dumb one, but was able to decipher the numbers LONG before the non-combat megagenius did.

or

How Jason from The Good Place was really dumb but had INSANELY good intuition, and was constantly figuring things out FAR before everyone else...

Actually... Now that I'm listing things, this feels like it might be a Trope
Dumb, but Intuitive...

Jason in particular was said to be a Monk, he is Wise, but low Int...
Kinda checks...

[Pex]

I agree with this very much. That's been my thought the entire time. If you don't like it, don't use it. I particularly like your last bit though. If it's such a problem, it's probably better left alone.

Also, I love your avatar!

But now's the time to provide input of not having it exist at all rather than choose not to use it. "Don't use it" does not solve the problem of something being a bad idea. If you like it, fine, try to convince WOTC to keep it, but those of us who don't are allowed to try to convince WOTC to not keep it. After all, if the rule was not there you could always do it anyway. Aren't people saying they already do it as a house rule? Shouldn't that be good enough for them?

[stoutstien]

'You chose wrong at character creation.' seems fair, but also Feels Bad and leads to arguments. Especially if the DM doesn't make challenges well, equally.

Yeah, the Wizard needs to decipher the Arcana check to understand the Lich's curse. Sure.

But as you're going through the Lich's Lair, the Barbarian asks 'Where are all huge, ice-frozen doors at, for me? When do I get a challenge that I'm good at?'

The DM says; 'Uhh...This is a Lich's Lair, it'll be mostly Arcana and Religion checks, probably, and the occasional Investigation.'

*Barbarian is now on their phone and no longer caring. Wake them up when combat starts.*

IME, telling players that they can't be involved, means they wont be.



It is a perfectly good reason, narratively. Unfortunately, in a game that requires participation and takes a heavy toll on players' attention spans, it's not something you can actually say though, because that's a green light for the player to acquire Feels Bad and check out.

Same could be said for save and damage type frequency. DMs should strive for a much better balance of those type of things than what published stuff tends to do.

I hate the idea of weak or strong saves, skills, ability scores, and any other opportunity cost features. They should all be relevant.

[Brookshw]

'You chose wrong at character creation.' seems fair, but also Feels Bad and leads to arguments. Especially if the DM doesn't make challenges well, equally.

Yeah, the Wizard needs to decipher the Arcana check to understand the Lich's curse. Sure.

But as you're going through the Lich's Lair, the Barbarian asks 'Where are all huge, ice-frozen doors at, for me? When do I get a challenge that I'm good at?'

The DM says; 'Uhh...This is a Lich's Lair, it'll be mostly Arcana and Religion checks, probably, and the occasional Investigation.'


So make challenges so everyone gets to play :smallconfused:

Lich's layer has a magical experiment that went haywire before party showed up, acts as a huge sucking vortex, to get to the library and snag the books you need to make athletics checks.

Lich doesn't keep his stuff easily accessible, that pond over there is a portal to about 600 feet underwater, some of the lich's stuff is in a sunken chest about 200 feet below the portal's other entrance, get through, get diving, make some con saves vs. cold, get back.

Spectral guardians from a tribe the lich killed ages ago, not gonna talk to the party, but physical prowess can impress them and earn their help.

This is just an issue of adventure design.

[Cheesegear]

I hate the idea of weak or strong saves, skills, ability scores, and any other opportunity cost features. They should all be relevant.

As I said back in the first thread;

Addressing the ASI problem, involves re-doing every single Class. IMO, the 'Ideal' character - regardless of Class - should have a 14 (+2) in every stat. Going all the way to 20 (+5), is allowed, and you're rewarded for that...But you're also punished for having 8 (-1). But like I said, making every stat relevant for every Class involves redoing almost all the classes.

(And with Feats, Xanathar's and Tasha's, there is plenty of material in current 5e that I could use to make this work. Not a lot would even have to change.)

[Pex]

"You don't have the capacity" seems fair and quick enough. If you wouldn't pass on a 20 plus maybe 5 from secondary bonuses then you probably shouldn't roll or if you do you have disadvantage.

That no longer works when 20 is autosuccess rule comes into play because everyone has a chance. If you still deny the roll anyway then you're ignoring the rule so shouldn't be there. Don't have the 20 always succeeds/1 always fail rule and this entire discussion, problem, and angst goes away. The rule existing is the problem.

[Psyren]

The DM is the world, its inhabitants, its deities, its trees. But for all that DM is, he is not the PCs.

The players get to decide what their characters can and do attempt to do. If you allow one player to attempt knocking down a DC25 door or deciphering a DC 25 manuscript then also deny another character the same opportunity you better have a damn good reason for it or it wont go down well.

They can attempt anything they like. "Attempt" is not synonymous with "roll" and never has been. That I think is one of the main distinctions the new books need to clarify.

"You slam your shoulder and other extremities into the door a few times; you don't get even the slightest sense that it is registering your attempts."
"You pore over the manuscript as closely as you can, but its meaning eludes you. You sense that you might need to try a different approach."


Anyone know Arthur from Fire Force; how he's the dumb one, but was able to decipher the numbers LONG before the non-combat megagenius did.

or

How Jason from The Good Place was really dumb but had INSANELY good intuition, and was constantly figuring things out FAR before everyone else...

Actually... Now that I'm listing things, this feels like it might be a Trope
Dumb, but Intuitive...

Jason in particular was said to be a Monk, he is Wise, but low Int...
Kinda checks...

Yes - Jason Mendoza is a fantastic example of low-Int, high-Wis, high-Cha. He's extremely perceptive, insightful, confident and charming, but the plans he formulates based on that information frequently get him into additional trouble.


So make challenges so everyone gets to play :smallconfused:

Lich's layer has a magical experiment that went haywire before party showed up, acts as a huge sucking vortex, to get to the library and snag the books you need to make athletics checks.

Lich doesn't keep his stuff easily accessible, that pond over there is a portal to about 600 feet underwater, some of the lich's stuff is in a sunken chest about 200 feet below the portal's other entrance, get through, get diving, make some con saves vs. cold, get back.

Spectral guardians from a tribe the lich killed ages ago, not gonna talk to the party, but physical prowess can impress them and earn their help.

This is just an issue of adventure design.

Bingo.

[stoutstien]

That no longer works when 20 is autosuccess rule comes into play because everyone has a chance. If you still deny the roll anyway then you're ignoring the rule so shouldn't be there. Don't have the 20 always succeeds/1 always fail rule and this entire discussion, problem, and angst goes away. The rule existing is the problem.

But they didn't roll to begin with so they can't roll a 20? You can look at your DC and then the PC's passive modifier and decide if they are even allowed to roll. I'm not defending these rules. I won't ever use them but I also don't think it's that big of a change of the DM has a grasp of the ability check system.


As I said back in the first thread;

Addressing the ASI problem, involves re-doing every single Class. IMO, the 'Ideal' character - regardless of Class - should have a 14 (+2) in every stat. Going all the way to 20 (+5), is allowed, and you're rewarded for that...But you're also punished for having 8 (-1). But like I said, making every stat relevant for every Class involves redoing almost all the classes.

(And with Feats, Xanathar's and Tasha's, there is plenty of material in current 5e that I could use to make this work. Not a lot would even have to change.)

I don't think it would take much overhaul really. The big block is spell just bypassing stuff as always. I think I mostly tackle the array issue with 5 additional or changed rules.

[Cheesegear]

So make challenges so everyone gets to play :smallconfused:
[...]
This is just an issue of adventure design.

'Just make perfect adventures and there's no problem.'

Why didn't I think of that?

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

But they didn't roll to begin with so they can't roll a 20? You can look at your DC and then the PC's passive modifier and decide if they are even allowed to roll. I'm not defending these rules. I won't ever use them but I also don't think it's that big of a change of the DM has a grasp of the ability check system.

I don't think it's that much of a stretch to interpret the rule as

Interpretation 1
Any task with a DC of 5-30 must have at least a 5% chance of success and at least a 5% chance of failure, full stop. Therefore a roll is always required. If a 1 is rolled, the player automatically fails (even if they would have otherwise succeeded) and if a 20 is rolled the player automatically succeeds (even if they would have otherwise failed).

As opposed to

Interpretation 2
Any task with a DC of 5-30 must have at least a 5% chance of success and at least a 5% chance of failure, if either is untrue then no roll is required. The player simply succeeded if there is less than a 5% chance of failure or simply fails if there is less than a 5% chance of success.

Interpretation 2 is congruent with the current system and isn't really much of a change, while Interpretation 1 is big step backwards
(Edit, I'm also pretty sure Interpretation 1 is the RAI)

Therefore, I agree with you that the rule isn't worth defending or implementing as written

[Brookshw]

'Just make perfect adventures and there's no problem.'

Why didn't I think of that?

Dunno, it was super low hanging fruit.

Heck, why even split up activities, get em both doing stuff at the same time. Lich didn't use flimsy paper, kept his writings on animated 500 lb lead sheets, if someone's gonna read it, someone's gonna have to wrestle it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Dunno, it was super low hanging fruit.

Heck, why even split up activities, get em both doing stuff at the same time. Lich didn't use flimsy paper, kept his writings on animated 500 lb lead sheets, if someone's gonna read it, someone's gonna have to wrestle it.

SKT actually does this, you can find a spellbook of one of the giant lords and it has some unique spells in it, however it's a giant's spellbook. It's 5ft tall and weighs 250 lbs.

If I recall that isn't the only time I've read about that, I want to say that there's some instance of a spell being inscribed on stone panels in Dungeon of the Mad Mage as well.

[Brookshw]

SKT actually does this, you can find a spellbook of one of the giant lords and it has some unique spells in it, however it's a giant's spellbook. It's 5ft tall and weighs 250 lbs.

If I recall that isn't the only time I've read about that, I want to say that there's some instance of a spell being inscribed on stone panels in Dungeon of the Mad Mage as well.

Don't know anything about those sources, but I'll believe it. Epic had a lot of stuff about spells on unusual surfaces as well.

[Psyren]

'Just make perfect adventures and there's no problem.'

Why didn't I think of that?

Good ones should be sufficient as a starting point honestly.

[Telok]

It seems there's a disconnect here. You're famously in favor of players having to know the rules inside and out and having no sympathy for people who just want a simple martial experience. Yet you're also hyper over-protective of DMs that don't even bother to read the very basics (and yes, setting DCs is the very basics) and just want them to have it all handed to them.

I despair. Again, and yet again, you have failed to comprehend my text in the same manner that all DMs I meet have failed to read your cherished chaper 8 which holds all answers to the secrets of good DMing. Again, and yet again, you miss the mark by rolling a nat 1 on your d20 to spot my plain speech. I concede defeat, you are incapable of understanding my meaning no matter how much clarity I strive to provide. I retire now. To wander the realms of dice pools, and rules-lite, and comedy ala Mork Borg. I leave to you... silence.

[Kane0]

"You don't have the capacity" seems fair and quick enough. If you wouldn't pass on a 20 plus maybe 5 from secondary bonuses then you probably shouldn't roll or if you do you have disadvantage.
The problem I see is that a 20 always does pass now, regardless of modifiers. That's the crux of it.



They can attempt anything they like. "Attempt" is not synonymous with "roll" and never has been. That I think is one of the main distinctions the new books need to clarify.

"You slam your shoulder and other extremities into the door a few times; you don't get even the slightest sense that it is registering your attempts."
"You pore over the manuscript as closely as you can, but its meaning eludes you. You sense that you might need to try a different approach."


Clarifying is good, but not having the issue pop up in the first place is better.



Interpretation 1
Any task with a DC of 5-30 must have at least a 5% chance of success and at least a 5% chance of failure, full stop. Therefore a roll is always required. If a 1 is rolled, the player automatically fails (even if they would have otherwise succeeded) and if a 20 is rolled the player automatically succeeds (even if they would have otherwise failed).

Interpretation 2
Any task with a DC of 5-30 must have at least a 5% chance of success and at least a 5% chance of failure, if either is untrue then no roll is required. The player simply succeeded if there is less than a 5% chance of failure or simply fails if there is less than a 5% chance of success.

Therefore, I agree with you that the rule isn't worth defending or implementing as written

Yeah I understand is as #1, and i'm not a fan. Attacks and Saves yeah that's fine, ability checks gets silly fast.

[animorte]

They can attempt anything they like. "Attempt" is not synonymous with "roll" and never has been. That I think is one of the main distinctions the new books need to clarify.
I agree it needs to be clarified, specifically because the PHB does actually put "attempt" with "roll" when talking about ability checks.

p. 174 The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results... <insert difficulty DC table> ...To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier...

Then we also have passive checks that could be taken into account: used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice...

[Psyren]

I agree it needs to be clarified, specifically because the PHB does actually put "attempt" with "roll" when talking about ability checks.

p. 174 The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results... <insert difficulty DC table> ...To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier...

Then we also have passive checks that could be taken into account: used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice...

Bold emphasis mine, you proved my point. You can attempt anything you want, but it only involves a roll when there is a chance of failure. Not no chance, and not a guarantee.

[animorte]

Bold emphasis mine, you proved my point. You can attempt anything you want, but it only involves a roll when there is a chance of failure. Not no chance, and not a guarantee.

Agreed, which is exactly relevant to your many points being mentioned many times in previous areas of this exact discussion topic.

[GooeyChewie]

But they didn't roll to begin with so they can't roll a 20? You can look at your DC and then the PC's passive modifier and decide if they are even allowed to roll. I'm not defending these rules. I won't ever use them but I also don't think it's that big of a change of the DM has a grasp of the ability check system.
It's a paradox. They only reason they didn't roll was because they couldn't possibly succeed. But the only reason they couldn't succeed is because they weren't given the opportunity to roll and possibly get a 20. Schrodinger's roll is simultaneously warranted and not warranted.

[Kane0]

It's a paradox. They only reason they didn't roll was because they couldn't possibly succeed. But the only reason they couldn't succeed is because they weren't given the opportunity to roll and possibly get a 20. Schrodinger's roll is simultaneously warranted and not warranted.

Ah, now i see

[Psyren]

Agreed, which is exactly relevant to your many points being mentioned many times in previous areas of this exact discussion topic.

And yet people here still wrongly conflate attempts with rolls in every circumstance, hence my repetition.


It's a paradox. They only reason they didn't roll was because they couldn't possibly succeed. But the only reason they couldn't succeed is because they weren't given the opportunity to roll and possibly get a 20. Schrodinger's roll is simultaneously warranted and not warranted.

If you want to get particularly pedantic, a 20 is only autosuccess on a d20 test, which can only occur on a DC of 5-30. So if you're truly enamored with pointless rolls, set the DC at 35 and then laugh in their face even when the 20 comes up on the die.

Speaking personally, I'd rather just tell them not to bother, but some folks really like the sound I guess.

[stoutstien]

It's a paradox. They only reason they didn't roll was because they couldn't possibly succeed. But the only reason they couldn't succeed is because they weren't given the opportunity to roll and possibly get a 20. Schrodinger's roll is simultaneously warranted and not warranted.
It's a linguistics paradox not a logical one. A lot of the rules in d&d don't make sense 100% of the time they're just trying to govern as much ground as possible and even if I don't like these rules they still do that. One of the reason why I think it's pointless because the system as is already covers the majority of the possibilities and fail to address the extreme edges of results. Adding in critical success and failures has the illusion of giving the players more agency in these matters but in reality it won't make a difference other than open the door for nonsensical action declarations

[huttj509]

A few points:

1. as a reminder, their stated reason for the change with nat 1s and nat 20s is by their data *most players are already playing with nat 1s being autofail and nat 20s being autosuccess.* The reason for the change consideration is they felt having the rules be at friction with how people are actually playing probably wasn't helpful. As such, I highly doubt the sky is going to fall.

2. the 'to be warranted' section seems clear to me as "if a d20 test is being rolled, the DC should be between 5 and 30." It's establishing that ODD still has the bounded accuracy idea, and DC aren't going to be skyrocketing like back in 3e.

3. As a gm and a player I have absolutely no issue with someone succeeding with a low modifier 5% of the time. Had just the right angle on lifting the gate to avoid it seizing, picked the info up in a pub attempting to flirt at someone, or even 'I dunno, just picked it up somewhere I guess." Not worth getting hung up on.

4. Similarly, I have no issue with someone, in the heat of the moment, failing 5% of the time. It happens. The current guidelines on when to call for a roll have not been changed (yet, at least). If it's something where they shouldn't be able to fail in the fiction of the scenario, and/or failure wouldn't be interesting, why are you calling for a roll?

Yes, clarification is needed on opposed checks and things like stealth (though that one is more like a duration thing, does a nat 20 on a stealth check mean you can just successfully sneak through the whole castle without another check just comparing to the passive perceptions?), but I do not feel this molehill is a mountain.

[Arkhios]

A few points:

1. as a reminder, their stated reason for the change with nat 1s and nat 20s is by their data *most players are already playing with nat 1s being autofail and nat 20s being autosuccess.* The reason for the change consideration is they felt having the rules be at friction with how people are actually playing probably wasn't helpful. As such, I highly doubt the sky is going to fall.

2. the 'to be warranted' section seems clear to me as "if a d20 test is being rolled, the DC should be between 5 and 30." It's establishing that ODD still has the bounded accuracy idea, and DC aren't going to be skyrocketing like back in 3e.

3. As a gm and a player I have absolutely no issue with someone succeeding with a low modifier 5% of the time. Had just the right angle on lifting the gate to avoid it seizing, picked the info up in a pub attempting to flirt at someone, or even 'I dunno, just picked it up somewhere I guess." Not worth getting hung up on.

4. Similarly, I have no issue with someone, in the heat of the moment, failing 5% of the time. It happens. The current guidelines on when to call for a roll have not been changed (yet, at least). If it's something where they shouldn't be able to fail in the fiction of the scenario, and/or failure wouldn't be interesting, why are you calling for a roll?

Yes, clarification is needed on opposed checks and things like stealth (though that one is more like a duration thing, does a nat 20 on a stealth check mean you can just successfully sneak through the whole castle without another check just comparing to the passive perceptions?), but I do not feel this molehill is a mountain.

Well said, and a 100% agreement with all four points.

[diplomancer]

A few points:

1. as a reminder, their stated reason for the change with nat 1s and nat 20s is by their data *most players are already playing with nat 1s being autofail and nat 20s being autosuccess.* The reason for the change consideration is they felt having the rules be at friction with how people are actually playing probably wasn't helpful. As such, I highly doubt the sky is going to fall.

2. the 'to be warranted' section seems clear to me as "if a d20 test is being rolled, the DC should be between 5 and 30." It's establishing that ODD still has the bounded accuracy idea, and DC aren't going to be skyrocketing like back in 3e.

3. As a gm and a player I have absolutely no issue with someone succeeding with a low modifier 5% of the time. Had just the right angle on lifting the gate to avoid it seizing, picked the info up in a pub attempting to flirt at someone, or even 'I dunno, just picked it up somewhere I guess." Not worth getting hung up on.

4. Similarly, I have no issue with someone, in the heat of the moment, failing 5% of the time. It happens. The current guidelines on when to call for a roll have not been changed (yet, at least). If it's something where they shouldn't be able to fail in the fiction of the scenario, and/or failure wouldn't be interesting, why are you calling for a roll?

Yes, clarification is needed on opposed checks and things like stealth (though that one is more like a duration thing, does a nat 20 on a stealth check mean you can just successfully sneak through the whole castle without another check just comparing to the passive perceptions?), but I do not feel this molehill is a mountain.

I agree with points 1-3. My beef with point 4 is that, to get to the point where you suceed on a natural 1, you have to make a lot of build choices to that end; making those build choices and then having them invalidated by sheer bad luck rankles me. At the very least, features like Reliable Talent (no, 95% chance for life or death situations is far from "reliable"), and spells like Glibness should work regardless of the die rolled. Otherwise, for me, Halfling will now be the best race.

[stoutstien]

I agree with points 1-3. My beef with point 4 is that, to get to the point where you suceed on a natural 1, you have to make a lot of build choices to that end; making those build choices and then having them invalidated by sheer bad luck rankles me. At the very least, features like Reliable Talent (no, 95% chance for life or death situations is far from "reliable"), and spells like Glibness should work regardless of the die rolled. Otherwise, for me, Halfling will now be the best race.

those do supersede the critical failure rule.

[GooeyChewie]

If you want to get particularly pedantic, a 20 is only autosuccess on a d20 test, which can only occur on a DC of 5-30. So if you're truly enamored with pointless rolls, set the DC at 35 and then laugh in their face even when the 20 comes up on the die.

Speaking personally, I'd rather just tell them not to bother, but some folks really like the sound I guess.
I am not enamored with pointless rolls. I want ability checks to have meaningful consequences. I just don't think those meaningful consequences necessarily have to include "success" and "failure." The "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20" rules force success and failure as possible consequences, which takes a narrative tool out of the DM's toolbox. I realize not all DMs were using the "your actions have consequences even if they cannot fail/succeed" tool, but that's poor excuse for taking said tool away from those of us who do use it. That's the feedback I intend to give on this subject, and the reason why I will ignore these rules if they do make it to the final product.



It's a linguistics paradox not a logical one. A lot of the rules in d&d don't make sense 100% of the time they're just trying to govern as much ground as possible and even if I don't like these rules they still do that. One of the reason why I think it's pointless because the system as is already covers the majority of the possibilities and fail to address the extreme edges of results. Adding in critical success and failures has the illusion of giving the players more agency in these matters but in reality it won't make a difference other than open the door for nonsensical action declarations
Part of my point there is that these rules give the players an argument for why a d20 Test should be warranted ("I would have a chance to succeed if you let me roll") even for nonsensical action declarations. So... I agree with you.


1. as a reminder, their stated reason for the change with nat 1s and nat 20s is by their data *most players are already playing with nat 1s being autofail and nat 20s being autosuccess.* The reason for the change consideration is they felt having the rules be at friction with how people are actually playing probably wasn't helpful. As such, I highly doubt the sky is going to fall.

2. the 'to be warranted' section seems clear to me as "if a d20 test is being rolled, the DC should be between 5 and 30." It's establishing that ODD still has the bounded accuracy idea, and DC aren't going to be skyrocketing like back in 3e.

3. As a gm and a player I have absolutely no issue with someone succeeding with a low modifier 5% of the time. Had just the right angle on lifting the gate to avoid it seizing, picked the info up in a pub attempting to flirt at someone, or even 'I dunno, just picked it up somewhere I guess." Not worth getting hung up on.

4. Similarly, I have no issue with someone, in the heat of the moment, failing 5% of the time. It happens. The current guidelines on when to call for a roll have not been changed (yet, at least). If it's something where they shouldn't be able to fail in the fiction of the scenario, and/or failure wouldn't be interesting, why are you calling for a roll?

1. I don't think the sky will fall, but just because the sky won't fall doesn't make the rules good. At the same time, I wonder if those tables actually consistently use nat-1-failure and nat-20-success on ability checks. As you point out, for the vast majority of rolls a 1 will fail and a 20 will succeed anyway. I suspect the nat-1/20-failure/success is applied in a more ad hoc fashion, using it for minor adjustments on checks which are just barely automatic/impossible and ignoring it in the cases where it causes conflict. And to be clear, I'm not saying those tables are having bad wrong fun. What I'm saying is that just because something works in certain situations on an ad hoc basis doesn't make that same thing a good blanket rule.

2. Yes, I agree that the 'to be warranted' part is telling DMs not to set DCs below 5 or above 30. I'm not sure that part is in dispute. The unclear part is, given that any d20 Test has both at least a 5% chance of failure and a 5% chance of success so long as the DM calls for the roll, are all ability checks that have a DC between 5 and 30 (likely established by another party member more suited to the task attempting the check) considered warranted? The intent is probably no, but if the DM disallows the roll it means they are explicitly deciding your character cannot succeed (as opposed to setting a difficultly and letting your build determine whether or not you can succeed).

3. I would agree that the occasional oddball outcome isn't worth getting hung up on. My hang-ups include: the DM no longer has the option to implement the "Degrees of Failure" rules without also giving a chance of success; players are encouraged to lobby their DMs for additional checks because rolling a 20 makes those checks possible and grants inspiration; and unlike attack rolls and saving throws the terms "success" and "failure" are not always well defined for ability checks, which can lead to mismatched expectations between players and DMs when somebody rolls a 1 or 20.

4. I can think of at least five scenarios in which a DM might call for a check where there is no chance of failure/success: the DM calls for all party members to roll, knowing that some members of the party might be unable to fail/succeed, but not wanting to reveal that fact until they see the exact results; or "success" and "failure" are meaningless concepts for the ability check in question (Initiative, for instance); or the check is an opposed one, and the inability to succeed or fail is not determined until after the check is called for and at least one side rolls; or the roll has meaningful consequences despite there not being a chance of failure/success in the a straightforward sense; or the DM simply didn't double-check the modifiers involved.


I don't feel like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here. Rather, I feel like playtest material is the time to point out molehills, and that pretending they don't exist just because you can step over them doesn't help the playtest process.

[Brookshw]

I am not enamored with pointless rolls. I want ability checks to have meaningful consequences. I just don't think those meaningful consequences necessarily have to include "success" and "failure." The "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20" rules force success and failure as possible consequences, which takes a narrative tool out of the DM's toolbox. I realize not all DMs were using the "your actions have consequences even if they cannot fail/succeed" tool, but that's poor excuse for taking said tool away from those of us who do use it. That's the feedback I intend to give on this subject, and the reason why I will ignore these rules if they do make it to the final product.


I'm having a hard time trying to envision what kind of meaningful consequences you're contemplating here. Would you mind giving some examples?

[Psyren]

I am not enamored with pointless rolls. I want ability checks to have meaningful consequences. I just don't think those meaningful consequences necessarily have to include "success" and "failure." The "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20" rules force success and failure as possible consequences, which takes a narrative tool out of the DM's toolbox. I realize not all DMs were using the "your actions have consequences even if they cannot fail/succeed" tool, but that's poor excuse for taking said tool away from those of us who do use it. That's the feedback I intend to give on this subject, and the reason why I will ignore these rules if they do make it to the final product.

You're saying this as though "success" and "failure" are not parameters within your control. They are. Per PHB 174, "failure" can mean that the character still succeeds, just with a complication or setback of some kind (that you get to choose.) Similarly, you have total control over what success means per DMG 242. A 1 or 20 showing up on the die does not suddenly mean you're no longer the DM and the dice supplant your will.

My feedback will be that the rule as a whole is fine but they need to emphasize that DMs shouldn't be calling for rolls where the outcome is certain in the first place, and that they should remind DMs of the above two facts.

[GooeyChewie]

I'm having a hard time trying to envision what kind of meaningful consequences you're contemplating here. Would you mind giving some examples?

Sure, I can give a few examples. Please note these are just examples, and any given DM could adjust these however they wish:

The classic example is trying to seduce a dragon. It won't succeed, but if you roll really well the dragon might find it funny, roll moderately well and the dragon might take it as a joke but be slightly miffed, roll poorly and the dragon might immediately attack and try to eat you.

My preferred example is trying to knock down a wall or door that's (unbeknownst to the party) somehow reinforced. Roll low and you'll think you've just failed to knock it down, roll well enough to knock down the door or wall were it not for the reinforcement and you'll find out that it is reinforced, roll really well you might figure out exactly how it is reinforced and how to counteract that reinforcement prior to your next attempt.

Another example might be trying to interpret some runes. Even if it is effectively not possible to get a precise interpretation due to a high DC, the information you get might vary. A terrible roll might accidentally trigger the runes, a low roll might give you nothing (or perhaps simply the knowledge that you almost set off the runes), a moderate roll might tell you that the runes are arcane/divine/primal (as defined in the new UA) and open up a check using a different skill, and a high roll might additionally narrow it down to a particular school of magic.

Page 242 of the DMG also gives a couple examples in the Degrees of Failure section. A character who fails to disarm a trapped chest might accidentally spring the trap if the check fails by 5 or more, whereas a lesser failure means that the trap wasn't triggered; a failed Charisma (Persuasion) check means a queen won't help, whereas a failure of 5 or more means she throws you in the dungeon for your impudence. Neither of these examples specifies that success had to be possible in order to have different degrees of failure. If my Persuasion modifier is +4 (+2 Charisma, +2 proficiency) and the DC for the queen was 25, her refusal to help is the best possible result but still a failure.



You're saying this as though "success" and "failure" are not parameters within your control. They are. Per PHB 174, "failure" can mean that the character still succeeds, just with a complication or setback of some kind (that you get to choose.) Similarly, you have total control over what success means per DMG 242. A 1 or 20 showing up on the die does not suddenly mean you're no longer the DM and the dice supplant your will.

My feedback will be that the rule as a whole is fine but they need to emphasize that DMs shouldn't be calling for rolls where the outcome is certain in the first place, and that they should remind DMs of the above two facts.

A 1 or 20 showing up on the die shouldn't the dice supplant the DM's will, but the "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20" rules say that they do. A 20 is a success, which per PHB 174 means the creature makes progress towards their goal. A 1 is a failure, which per PHB 174 means the creature either does not make progress towards their goal or does so alongside some setback. The DM gets to decide the specifics, but the UA rules do force "the creature makes progress towards their goal"/"the creature makes no progress towards their goal or makes progress only alongside some setback" as possible results where the DM might not want them. Of course, the DM is free to ignore those rules, but "you can ignore it" is hardly a good defense of a proposed rule.

I reread DMG 242, and I don't see anything which says the DM has total control over what success means. It gives three approaches the DM might take - Success at a Cost (which really just reiterates in long form the "makes progress alongside a setback" point on PHB 174), Degrees of Failure (which only applies on failures, and so not if the creature rolls a 20), and Critical Success or Failure (which basically says you can add extra effects if you want on a 1 or 20). Nothing on that page says the DM is free to treat a success as a failure, nor does it say that they can treat failure as a success without a cost. In fact, it explicitly says these approaches can help make ability checks "a little less black-and-white," and those shades of gray are precisely what the "Rolling a 1" and "Rolling a 20" rules quash.

Granted, the DM could redefine "success" or "failure" to mean the opposite of what you'd expect them to mean, or whatever they want them to mean. But in that sense those terms (and consequently the rules invoking them) are utterly meaningless.

[Pex]

But they didn't roll to begin with so they can't roll a 20? You can look at your DC and then the PC's passive modifier and decide if they are even allowed to roll. I'm not defending these rules. I won't ever use them but I also don't think it's that big of a change of the DM has a grasp of the ability check system.



That's the point. If you're not allowing the roll because based on the PC he wouldn't/would fail anyway, then you're not letting the 1 always fails/20 always succeed chance happen. That's ignoring the rule because you're denying the player his chance to succeed by rolling a 20 or fail by rolling a 1. You're not letting that aspect of the rule from ever happening, so the rule shouldn't exist since it's not being used.

[Psyren]

I reread DMG 242, and I don't see anything which says the DM has total control over what success means.

You skipped literally the first sentence on that page. Furthermore, all three of the approaches you covered are "flourishes", i.e. add-ons for flair that have nothing to do with your core responsibility of determining the consequences of ability checks.

[Brookshw]

Sure, I can give a few examples.

Thank you.

[stoutstien]

That's the point. If you're not allowing the roll because based on the PC he wouldn't/would fail anyway, then you're not letting the 1 always fails/20 always succeed chance happen. That's ignoring the rule because you're denying the player his chance to succeed by rolling a 20 or fail by rolling a 1. You're not letting that aspect of the rule from ever happening, so the rule shouldn't exist since it's not being used.

That about sums it up though I disagree that the rules prevent a DM from disallowing a particular PC from attempting a test. The very first line of the second paragraph of theUA rules governing this blatantly States the DM gets to decide when and who gets to perform the test. These rules don't say that every player always gets a chance it's saying that when a roll occurs there's always a chance to success or failure.

That's why as much as I dislike these rules I don't think they're that impactful. They've been an option since the DMG was released and it's made practically zero waves.

Not exactly a new phenomenon here it's been that way since the back half a 2e. Once I started shifting to an action resolution system the DM has always had first and last word that determine if that action is even feasible.

[GooeyChewie]

You skipped literally the first sentence on that page. Furthermore, all three of the approaches you covered are "flourishes", i.e. add-ons for flair that have nothing to do with your core responsibility of determining the consequences of ability checks.

Look, I don't want to go another 50 pages here. Suffice it to say, the sentence "You determine the consequences of attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws" does not override all the other rules regarding attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws. It doesn't let the DM treat "success" as something other than "the creature overcomes the challenge at hand" (PHB 174) any more than it allows the DM to treat attack roll hits as misses (PHB 193-194). If you follow the UA rules, then allowing a player to roll on ability check requires "the creature overcomes the challenge at hand" and "the the creature or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback" must be possible results. If you're okay with that, fine, tell WotC as much in your feedback. I'm not, and that's the feedback I'll provide. Deal?

[Psyren]

The rule change IS being used, because it applies to saves now too. It's just easier to say:

"here's how 20s and 1s on all d20 tests work."

than it is to say:

"this 20/1 rule applies to attack rolls, saving throws, and technically ability checks too, but you really shouldn't have been calling for an ability check where a 20 wouldn't succeed and a 1 wouldn't fail anyway, so you can disregard that third part as long as you're calling for ability checks properly, though you can call for them improperly if you don't mind comedic or slapstick results, but anyway we're including it here for completeness."


Suffice it to say, the sentence "You determine the consequences of attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws" does not override all the other rules regarding attack rolls, ability checks and saving throws.

I agree it doesn't override anything, it's perfectly compatible with every other rule regarding d20 tests.


If you're okay with that, fine, tell WotC as much in your feedback. I'm not, and that's the feedback I'll provide. Deal?

I've been clear as to what feedback I'm going to provide, as have you, so I don't think a deal is needed, but sure.

[Pex]

Bold emphasis mine, you proved my point. You can attempt anything you want, but it only involves a roll when there is a chance of failure. Not no chance, and not a guarantee.

If you only let a roll happen when a chance of failure is possible then a 1 would have failed anyway. If you only let a roll happen when a chance of success is possible then a 20 would succeed anyway. Ergo, there's no need for the rule because you're not letting it happen. You're not allowing 1 always fails/20 always succeeds despite modifiers to activate.


A few points:

1. as a reminder, their stated reason for the change with nat 1s and nat 20s is by their data *most players are already playing with nat 1s being autofail and nat 20s being autosuccess.* The reason for the change consideration is they felt having the rules be at friction with how people are actually playing probably wasn't helpful. As such, I highly doubt the sky is going to fall.

2. the 'to be warranted' section seems clear to me as "if a d20 test is being rolled, the DC should be between 5 and 30." It's establishing that ODD still has the bounded accuracy idea, and DC aren't going to be skyrocketing like back in 3e.

3. As a gm and a player I have absolutely no issue with someone succeeding with a low modifier 5% of the time. Had just the right angle on lifting the gate to avoid it seizing, picked the info up in a pub attempting to flirt at someone, or even 'I dunno, just picked it up somewhere I guess." Not worth getting hung up on.

4. Similarly, I have no issue with someone, in the heat of the moment, failing 5% of the time. It happens. The current guidelines on when to call for a roll have not been changed (yet, at least). If it's something where they shouldn't be able to fail in the fiction of the scenario, and/or failure wouldn't be interesting, why are you calling for a roll?

Yes, clarification is needed on opposed checks and things like stealth (though that one is more like a duration thing, does a nat 20 on a stealth check mean you can just successfully sneak through the whole castle without another check just comparing to the passive perceptions?), but I do not feel this molehill is a mountain.

Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't make it right. Many tables use critical fumble tables for attacks. I hate them with a passion and always argue against them. They are a terrible idea yet people still use them and don't care 20th level fighters become incompetent always dropping their weapons or critically hitting themselves or whatever nonsense critical fumble tables give. Spellcasters are also unaffected. It is true they have more attacks roll spells than in the past. However, they can choose not to use those spells and only ever choose spells with saving throws. Warlocks won't like it, but they can. Therefore a spellcaster never fumbles but warriors will. So yes, 1 always fails/20 always succeeds on ability checks is also terrible regardless of tables using it as a house rule.

I do have an issue of failing something I shouldn't. When I have a high enough modifier I put in the time, effort, and build choices to make that happen. I want to be that good I can't fail. Not everything needs a chance of failure. I want to enjoy the fruits of the labor put in. If you as DM are not allowing the roll because you agree there's no chance of failure, then you're ignoring the rule because you're not letting that chance of failure happen. The rule existing is the problem.

[Psyren]

If you only let a roll happen when a chance of failure is possible then a 1 would have failed anyway. If you only let a roll happen when a chance of success is possible then a 20 would succeed anyway.

Exactly, we're on the same page.


Ergo, there's no need for the rule because you're not letting it happen.

There's still a point to the rule because it applies to more than ability checks.

[Pex]

Exactly, we're on the same page.



There's still a point to the rule because it applies to more than ability checks.

So why do you keep disagreeing with people who say the rule shouldn't exist for ability checks? No one is complaining the rule exists for attack rolls and saving throws. We don't want it for ability checks. That's the issue.

[Psyren]

So why do you keep disagreeing with people who say the rule shouldn't exist for ability checks? No one is complaining the rule exists for attack rolls and saving throws. We don't want it for ability checks. That's the issue.

I'm saying that lumping all of them into one category ("d20 Test") and then explaining how those work concisely is a good thing, even if it doesn't/shouldn't actually change anything for ability checks in a practical sense. I've been saying that consistently, with the most recent example of me saying that being literally above your post (#146).

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

I'm saying that lumping all of them into one category ("d20 Test") and then explaining how those work concisely is a good thing, even if it doesn't/shouldn't actually change anything for ability checks in a practical sense. I've been saying that consistently, with the most recent example of me saying that being literally above your post (#146).

Lumping them together is good for a variety of reasons, but Wotc doesn't have to use to use the Lump in the rules regarding rolling a nat 1/20 as it only applies 2/3 in the Lump. Given that parameters of what ability checks do are much looser than attacks and saves, having a little of separation in this instance would be beneficial

[diplomancer]

I'm saying that lumping all of them into one category ("d20 Test") and then explaining how those work concisely is a good thing, even if it doesn't/shouldn't actually change anything for ability checks in a practical sense. I've been saying that consistently, with the most recent example of me saying that being literally above your post (#146).

Not to mention the hard-coded ability checks. Maybe they should explicitly separate those from the on-the-spur ability checks? Although I believe doing that is precisely the point of the "DMs decide whether a check is warranted under any circumstances" rule.

For the on-the-spur, ad hoc ability checks, even if DMs feel they now "have to" let people try anyway, there's a simple solution. Give Disadvantage if the PC can't succeed without this rule, and Advantage if he can't fail. Presto, you've just changed the unacceptable 5% odds into an acceptable 0.25%. And if that's still not enough to stop players from insisting on trying "impossible" rolls, start imposing dire consequences for checks that fail by 5 or more. (P.S: those are both mechanical tools already in a DM's hand by current rules. No houseruling here. A more liberal use of advantage/disadvantsge, in particular, solves a lot of the problems people have with the current, or coming, system)

[Kane0]

Hard coded like manacles and such?

[diplomancer]

Hard coded like manacles and such?

PHB manacles are hardcoded. Doesn't mean all manacles are. I mean more like escape DC from Wrathful Smite after first failed save, DC to detect illusions, the Maze spell-very much like Manacles, actually- casting spells from scrolls, etc.)

But as I've said in my edit: if you don't like Str 8 Wizards breaking free from manacles easily, applying disadvantage and bad consequences, say exhaustion, for big failures, will be sufficient to stop the worst of it. Players will now only try those stunts when they absolutely have to (and if they then succeed against all odds, that would be both fun and memorable), not just do them for the sake of "maybe I'll get lucky".

[Psyren]

The survey is open from now until 9/15 - my link appears to be personalized but it should be accessible via DnDBeyond (https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd).

[Telwar]

Any idea how long the survey is, in terms of questions?

[Psyren]

Any idea how long the survey is, in terms of questions?

En route to DragonCon, so I won't sit down and take it until later this evening when I'm settled in the hotel.

[P. G. Macer]

Any idea how long the survey is, in terms of questions?

It took me around 15 minutes, though I didn’t leave extensive commenting on each survey item. If you do, it’ll probably be longer.

[Mastikator]

Took the survey, took me 20 minutes I think.

Said my piece, which is that I overall like it but with some reservations about two or three things that could be improved.

[Ortho]

But as I've said in my edit: if you don't like Str 8 Wizards breaking free from manacles easily, applying disadvantage and bad consequences, say exhaustion, for big failures, will be sufficient to stop the worst of it. Players will now only try those stunts when they absolutely have to (and if they then succeed against all odds, that would be both fun and memorable), not just do them for the sake of "maybe I'll get lucky".

That is a lot of effort to replicate something that could be avoided altogether if natural 20s weren't an automatic success.

[Zevox]

The survey is open from now until 9/15 - my link appears to be personalized but it should be accessible via DnDBeyond (https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd).
They need you to have an account with them in order to provide feedback now, from what I'm seeing? I am not thrilled with that, as I have no other reason to have an account there. It also seems like just a bad idea if the desire is to get feedback from as many people as possible.

...and also, apparently they'll only accept Google or Apple accounts, it's not even one unique to their site? Oh, this is not to my liking at all. I don't know if giving them my feedback on this is worth that.

[diplomancer]

That is a lot of effort to replicate something that could be avoided altogether if natural 20s weren't an automatic success.

Yeah, applying disadvantage is so hard! And coming up with consequences for big failures? How can anyone play such a complicated game?

The point of doing this is to train your players to not ask for pointless rolls. It's not at all more hard than saying "you don't get to roll", and has the advantage of, eventually, hopefully, teaching your players that going for very low odds of success can be costly. Once accomplished, you will have players wanting to "try stuff" only when they have reasonable odds of succeeding, or if they absolutely have no other choice. In any case, there won't be the problem people mentioned, I.e, players insisting on a roll that they have very little chances of succeeding.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Submitted feedback. The repeated theme was "enough with the spells slapped on everything". And "crits are fine the way they are, you don't need to change them at all".

[stoutstien]

Submitted feedback. The repeated theme was "enough with the spells slapped on everything". And "crits are fine the way they are, you don't need to change them at all".

Close to mine. I added that the save for grapple needs to happen at the start of a turn and/or allow an action to break to prevent permeant lock down. I like grappling being a good option but with these changes it almost impossible to get away.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Close to mine. I added that the save for grapple needs to happen at the start of a turn and/or allow an action to break to prevent permeant lock down. I like grappling being a good option but with these changes it almost impossible to get away.

I reserved judgement about grappling.

One thing I failed to say (but really should have) is that 2 weeks is absolutely not enough time to playtest stuff. Oh, and the piecemeal nature of this makes judgement really hard since we can't see most things in context. I said that in a couple places, but not consistently.

[P. G. Macer]

One thing I only realized now (and am kicking myself for not using the miscellaneous feedback section for back when I filled out the survey) is that the survey does not ask you about your opinion on the new hybrid race mechanic, and by extension the elimination of half-elves and half-orcs as distinct races. The cynical part of me wonders if they don’t want feedback on this section for the same reason they initially didn’t allow a section for commenting on the flexible racial ASIs for the first few post-Tasha’s Unearthed Arcana installments, which is to say they are going to go through with it not matter the kind of response they receive (which we don’t know of one way or the other because we don’t have access to WotC’s complete data). I deeply regret how I forgot to point out that the lifespan of a half-human half-elf is now roughly 170 years longer than the 2014 PHB half-elf, along with other gaps that appear should we be forced to rely on the hybridization system presented in the One D&D UA rather than having hybrid races/species as races in their own rights.

[animorte]

One thing I failed to say (but really should have) is that 2 weeks is absolutely not enough time to playtest stuff. Oh, and the piecemeal nature of this makes judgement really hard since we can't see most things in context. I said that in a couple places, but not consistently.

Don’t worry, I will mention both of those.

[Asmotherion]

Just took the survey. Had a lot of comments and suggestions. My main focus was:

A) To have a more free ability score distribution. Instead of a set amount of Ability Scores, I figured it would be better to choose where to Give a +2 and where a +1 between 2 scores.

B) Long Rests should be treated as Short Rests. What I mean is, instead of regaining all your HP on a Long Rest, you just regain half your HD, and can spend it right away. I dislike how you can be nearly dead one day, and the next be at full HP.

C) Destroy the Darkvision Joke. I suggested that "regular Darkvision" should be no more than 30 feet, and it should not substitute the need of a torch. Also, someone with Superior Darkvision should feel special for having it.

D) More Feats! I suggest feats every 3rd level instead of 4th, and that ASI should be a different resource than feats.

E) To avoid Coockie Cutter Builds. As there was before the Half-Elf Bard or Tiefling Warlock, the current system suggests that every Charisma Caster should be a Noble for example; I want to avoid this by giving a choice of Feats you gain from your backround, as well as a choice of how to distribute your +2/+1 points, instead of gaining a cookie cutter build.

That's the main points I address with my own personal feedback. Agree or Disagree, feel free to comment on it.

[animorte]

D) More Feats! I suggest feats every 3rd level instead of 4th, and that ASI should be a different resource than feats.
I could agree with more feats, but just separating them from ASI would suffice. Especially since everybody should acquire a feat at level one.


E) To avoid Coockie Cutter Builds. As there was before the Half-Elf Bard or Tiefling Warlock, the current system suggests that every Charisma Caster should be a Noble for example; I want to avoid this by giving a choice of Feats you gain from your backround, as well as a choice of how to distribute your +2/+1 points, instead of gaining a cookie cutter build.

The way I understand it, your request was already worked into the UA. Those are just suggested backgrounds, templates that seem to be in place for the new/lazy/sub-optimized players. Otherwise, the customization looks solid.

[Psyren]

They need you to have an account with them in order to provide feedback now, from what I'm seeing? I am not thrilled with that, as I have no other reason to have an account there. It also seems like just a bad idea if the desire is to get feedback from as many people as possible.

...and also, apparently they'll only accept Google or Apple accounts, it's not even one unique to their site? Oh, this is not to my liking at all. I don't know if giving them my feedback on this is worth that.

It might be some form of anti-bot/sockpuppet measure.


Close to mine. I added that the save for grapple needs to happen at the start of a turn and/or allow an action to break to prevent permeant lock down. I like grappling being a good option but with these changes it almost impossible to get away.

I like the idea of being able to use your action to break free along with the free save to break free. If you give your all to escaping then two chances per round makes sense. Alternatively, using your action to do it might cause you to forego the free attempt, but would have the benefit of you being able to try using your speed to get away before your turn ends.


One thing I only realized now (and am kicking myself for not using the miscellaneous feedback section for back when I filled out the survey) is that the survey does not ask you about your opinion on the new hybrid race mechanic, and by extension the elimination of half-elves and half-orcs as distinct races. The cynical part of me wonders if they don’t want feedback on this section for the same reason they initially didn’t allow a section for commenting on the flexible racial ASIs for the first few post-Tasha’s Unearthed Arcana installments, which is to say they are going to go through with it not matter the kind of response they receive (which we don’t know of one way or the other because we don’t have access to WotC’s complete data). I deeply regret how I forgot to point out that the lifespan of a half-human half-elf is now roughly 170 years longer than the 2014 PHB half-elf, along with other gaps that appear should we be forced to rely on the hybridization system presented in the One D&D UA rather than having hybrid races/species as races in their own rights.

Eh, half-elves living a bit longer than previously doesn't really change much I'd say.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The way I understand it, your request was already worked into the UA. Those are just suggested backgrounds, templates that seem to be in place for the new/lazy/sub-optimized players. Otherwise, the customization looks solid.

On backgrounds, I suggested just splitting out the feat/ASIs from the background itself. Just say "pick a level 1 feat and add +2 to one ability score and +1 to another" as a separate step of character creation. Then leave backgrounds for the less mechanical, more meaningful parts instead of being "just give me more numbers", which is what the UA has.

[animorte]

On backgrounds, I suggested just splitting out the feat/ASIs from the background itself. Just say "pick a level 1 feat and add +2 to one ability score and +1 to another" as a separate step of character creation. Then leave backgrounds for the less mechanical, more meaningful parts instead of being "just give me more numbers", which is what the UA has.

113% and thank you for clarifying that thought.

[Kane0]

Done, took me about a half hour on my phone adding comments

[Envyus]

They need you to have an account with them in order to provide feedback now, from what I'm seeing? I am not thrilled with that, as I have no other reason to have an account there. It also seems like just a bad idea if the desire is to get feedback from as many people as possible.

...and also, apparently they'll only accept Google or Apple accounts, it's not even one unique to their site? Oh, this is not to my liking at all. I don't know if giving them my feedback on this is worth that.

Your supposed to have an account to download the Playtest in the first place.

[stoutstien]

On backgrounds, I suggested just splitting out the feat/ASIs from the background itself. Just say "pick a level 1 feat and add +2 to one ability score and +1 to another" as a separate step of character creation. Then leave backgrounds for the less mechanical, more meaningful parts instead of being "just give me more numbers", which is what the UA has.

Much cleaner. Maybe make feats and ASI part of the first lv feature for classes. Could gate a few combos that way as well.



I reserved judgement about grappling.

One thing I failed to say (but really should have) is that 2 weeks is absolutely not enough time to playtest stuff. Oh, and the piecemeal nature of this makes judgement really hard since we can't see most things in context. I said that in a couple places, but not consistently.

All my players did was grapple during playtest lol. The alert kensei monk just zoomed and recked anything that couldn't teleport. Even if they make the save they are still stuck prone for a round getting pounded on after that.

Agree that 2 weeks is nothing for playtest time. It's probably a net negative as feedback presented as a segment of the purposed changes in isolation because we can't see the what other changes are in the hopper.

[Zevox]

It might be some form of anti-bot/sockpuppet measure.
Perhaps, but I try to minimize the number of random accounts I create in places, and especially those I link my Google account to, because the kind of tracking those kinds of things can facilitate is creepy as hell to me. So this makes me very leery, personally.


Your supposed to have an account to download the Playtest in the first place.
Well, I didn't. The link Psyren provided in the first post of the original thread worked just fine for me.

[Brookshw]

Perhaps, but I try to minimize the number of random accounts I create in places, and especially those I link my Google account to, because the kind of tracking those kinds of things can facilitate is creepy as hell to me. So this makes me very leery, personally.


I'm with you. Shame.

[gloryblaze]

Close to mine. I added that the save for grapple needs to happen at the start of a turn and/or allow an action to break to prevent permeant lock down. I like grappling being a good option but with these changes it almost impossible to get away.

In the new rules, you can Ready an Action to move up to your speed upon the end of the grapple if you highly prioritize moving away, that would have the same action economy cost and similar situational costs (action to Ready, movement up to your speed, chance to fail if you don't pass the end of turn save, provokes an OA) as breaking a grapple in the current rules (action to break the grapple, movement up to your speed, chance to fail if you don't win the opposed check, provokes an OA).

Admittedly, it's definitely weaker in some circumstances: a Rogue could action break grapple, BA Disengage, then move their speed without provoking an OA in the old rules. Or BA Dash to try to get out of the grappler's movement+reach for next turn. Furthermore, in the old rules if you were grappled + prone, you could break the grapple, then stand, then move half your speed to end your turn not prone. In the new rules using Ready, you'd still break the grapple and move half your speed, but you'd end prone. But still, if you're planning to dedicate your action to escaping a grapple and repositioning yourself, Ready seems like a mostly functional substitute.

EDIT: And the old standby of just shoving the grappler still works, assuming they're within a size category of you. Which is already the superior thing to do in current 5e if you have Extra Attack, since it only uses one of your attacks instead of your whole action. If anything this is probably even easier now, since hitting an Unarmed Strike against the grappler's AC is probably easier than winning an opposed Strength (Athletics) check against a dedicated grappler who might have Expertise or advantage from Rage or whatnot.

[Ortho]

Yeah, applying disadvantage is so hard! And coming up with consequences for big failures? How can anyone play such a complicated game?

The point of doing this is to train your players to not ask for pointless rolls. It's not at all more hard than saying "you don't get to roll", and has the advantage of, eventually, hopefully, teaching your players that going for very low odds of success can be costly. Once accomplished, you will have players wanting to "try stuff" only when they have reasonable odds of succeeding, or if they absolutely have no other choice. In any case, there won't be the problem people mentioned, I.e, players insisting on a roll that they have very little chances of succeeding.

Rule #1 of storytelling: show, don't tell.

You can either tell your players that their character can't do that thing, or you can show your players that their character can't do that thing. Letting your players fail is better than just telling them they can't succeed.

[Leon]

They need you to have an account with them in order to provide feedback now, from what I'm seeing? I am not thrilled with that, as I have no other reason to have an account there. It also seems like just a bad idea if the desire is to get feedback from as many people as possible.


Bleh, so begins the assimilation that the acquisition of d&d beyond started

[Pex]

PHB manacles are hardcoded. Doesn't mean all manacles are. I mean more like escape DC from Wrathful Smite after first failed save, DC to detect illusions, the Maze spell-very much like Manacles, actually- casting spells from scrolls, etc.)

But as I've said in my edit: if you don't like Str 8 Wizards breaking free from manacles easily, applying disadvantage and bad consequences, say exhaustion, for big failures, will be sufficient to stop the worst of it. Players will now only try those stunts when they absolutely have to (and if they then succeed against all odds, that would be both fun and memorable), not just do them for the sake of "maybe I'll get lucky".

But if the rule didn't exist at all this wouldn't be needed.

[Xervous]

Can't be potato'd to set up a burner account tonight for the survey, maybe tomorrow. Let's see...

yahoo -> appleID -> D&D beyond account :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

But if the rule didn't exist at all this wouldn't be needed.

You're right, hardcoded DC 20 for manacles shouldn't exist.


Rule #1 of storytelling: show, don't tell.

You can either tell your players that their character can't do that thing, or you can show your players that their character can't do that thing. Letting your players fail is better than just telling them they can't succeed.

Letting your players try and fail is fine. Wasting everyone's time on a roll for something you know will fail is unnecessary.

[Ortho]

Letting your players try and fail is fine. Wasting everyone's time on a roll for something you know will fail is unnecessary.

I disagree. Failure is still a learning experience and - rather crucially - the players are shown how impossible it is and aren't just told it.

Anyways, there's some nuance here. I'd allow a character with a negative modifier to attempt a DC 23 task, for instance, because while it is impossible for the character, it's not impossible for the party. Someone could cast Guidance or use Bardic Inspiration or what have you to make it possible.

[Envyus]

Well, I didn't. The link Psyren provided in the first post of the original thread worked just fine for me.

That’s cause they provided a link to the pdf they downloaded from Beyond instead of the link to Beyond.

They made it clear from day 1 the playtest and feedback was intended for beyond users.

[Envyus]

Bleh, so begins the assimilation that the acquisition of d&d beyond started
This was always the case with Beyond only materials.

I seriously just recommend getting an account you can get a fair amount of free stuff and you can properly take part in the playtest.

[Pex]

Finished the survey. They now have the benefit of my opinion.

[Kane0]

I completely forgot i had an account from 2 years ago, didnt notice

[animorte]

You know it just occurred to me that perhaps they value the opinion more of their dedicated members (having a dnd beyond account) and taking the survey and filling in comments not on the first day it’s released. Perhaps we haven’t had enough time to devote looking at it, much less play testing. Though two weeks is still barely notable.

Might as well wind up our hot takes thread and throw it at them.

[Zevox]

That’s cause they provided a link to the pdf they downloaded from Beyond instead of the link to Beyond.

They made it clear from day 1 the playtest and feedback was intended for beyond users.
Their mistake, then, limiting the feedback they'll receive only to a small portion of the game's players by design. Especially after so many years of letting anyone and everyone send them feedback on their own website, which makes considerably more sense.

[Envyus]

Their mistake, then, limiting the feedback they'll receive only to a small portion of the game's players by design. Especially after so many years of letting anyone and everyone send them feedback on their own website, which makes considerably more sense.
You also needed an account on their site to download the old playtest.


Sad that only DnDBeyond accounts can take the survey and have a say in the direction of One D&D. Neither I nor my main group of players have DnDBeyond accounts.

There are way more people that play DnD than are on Beyond and if you're trying to appeal to the broader D&D fanbase I think it would stand to reason they should open up the playtest materials and the surveys to all the players.

One D&D I guess is being developed for DnDBeyond I guess. No thanks, I'll pass. Will save me a lot of time and money in the long run.

Maybe GitP needs to make a new forum for D&Done. Thoughts?

The account is free, you don't need to pay for anything. Don't get why people are so against signing up for something that costs nothing, and gives you free stuff once in a while.

[Zevox]

You also needed an account on their site to download the old playtest.
Wouldn't know, I wasn't aware of 5E until it came out. If so, their mistake then too - which they had rectified, until now.

[animorte]

The account is free, you don't need to pay for anything. Don't get why people are so against signing up for something that costs nothing, and gives you free stuff once in a while.

Yeah, this concept escapes me as well.

I remember a point where I was just getting into d&d and wanted to join up various things related just because I really enjoyed it. That happened to be one of them. I’ve never spent money through it, so it’s never really been a concern.

[Pex]

I don't have a google account nor an apple account so I can't create a DnDBeyond account apparently.

"Currently D&D Beyond only supports registration through Google or Apple." And I don't intend on getting one of those other accounts either.

I have a 25+ year old email that works for most things, like the D&D Next playtest material back in the day. I get that they want people to sign up for the playtest material and surveys for tracking purposes. I get that they want to boost their DnDBeyond account numbers. I don't get why I have to have specific accounts (and unrelated to D&D) to sign up for DnDBeyond though. It costs my time and my information being dispersed on many more platforms which I'd rather not engage with. Hopefully that's understandable to you.

They figure, not morally wrongly, that those who are most into D&D will have a D&D Beyond account or willing to get a free account by word of mouth this playtest/survey exists. While they want the market of those curious about that whatsitcalled game on Stranger Things, they'll play whatever exists and are likely not the ones who are buying the books. They want the people who are passionate about the game to opine on what would make the game good for them since they're the ones who would dedicate themselves to playing and buying. For those like you who wouldn't bother to do that much and hardcore people still playing 2E or even 1E, it's a price they're willing to pay not to get their feedback.

They can't make you get a Google account, but they're not evilbadwrongmeanies because you refuse to get one.

[Cheesegear]

The account is free, you don't need to pay for anything. Don't get why people are so against signing up for something that costs nothing, and gives you free stuff once in a while.

You know what they say about free stuff on the internet... :smalleek:

I understand why people don't see a problem with free stuff on the internet.
I also understand why people do.


They want the people who are passionate about the game to opine on what would make the game good for them since they're the ones who would dedicate themselves to playing and buying.

The thing is, there are a lot of nerds who love physical media (i.e; Books). These same nerds are...Aware...Of the pitfalls of creating accounts for everything on the internet. Especially when those accounts ask to tie themselves to your Facebook and/or Google Account.

So, in essence;

1. Do you love D&D?
2. Can you give Feedback?
3. Can you give us access to your Facebook and/or Google metadata?

I know a number of people who love D&D that they buy every single book - including the weird MtG ones. They loathe D&D Beyond. I could probably convince them to create a burner account just so they can post to D&D Beyond, but personally I don't think they should have to.

Being passionate about D&D and being passionate about D&D Beyond, are not the same thing.

[stoutstien]

In the new rules, you can Ready an Action to move up to your speed upon the end of the grapple if you highly prioritize moving away, that would have the same action economy cost and similar situational costs (action to Ready, movement up to your speed, chance to fail if you don't pass the end of turn save, provokes an OA) as breaking a grapple in the current rules (action to break the grapple, movement up to your speed, chance to fail if you don't win the opposed check, provokes an OA).

Admittedly, it's definitely weaker in some circumstances: a Rogue could action break grapple, BA Disengage, then move their speed without provoking an OA in the old rules. Or BA Dash to try to get out of the grappler's movement+reach for next turn. Furthermore, in the old rules if you were grappled + prone, you could break the grapple, then stand, then move half your speed to end your turn not prone. In the new rules using Ready, you'd still break the grapple and move half your speed, but you'd end prone. But still, if you're planning to dedicate your action to escaping a grapple and repositioning yourself, Ready seems like a mostly functional substitute.

EDIT: And the old standby of just shoving the grappler still works, assuming they're within a size category of you. Which is already the superior thing to do in current 5e if you have Extra Attack, since it only uses one of your attacks instead of your whole action. If anything this is probably even easier now, since hitting an Unarmed Strike against the grappler's AC is probably easier than winning an opposed Strength (Athletics) check against a dedicated grappler who might have Expertise or advantage from Rage or whatnot.

If you ready action to move after the save the grappler can just repeat the grapple(depending on party AO shove is better) with their AO. At best you get half your speed away at the cost of your action and reaction which means you are still close enough for the sequence to repeat.
Shoving away is probably the best option but if you are also prone then disadvantage on your attacks ends up with as long of odds as the athletics/acrobatics contest. That's assuming the npc has enough strength to make the attempt valid.

[Kane0]

Being passionate about D&D and being passionate about D&D Beyond, are not the same thing.

Absolutely

[ProsecutorGodot]

Absolutely

They will be much closer going forward though so if the minimum you need to do is sign up, for free, I think that's a low bar.

Honestly, if this is the deal breaker is agree with Pex and say they're probably more than willing to lose a bit of feedback on this, because this is a heavy push in this new iteration of D&D

[Brookshw]

They will be much closer going forward though so if the minimum you need to do is sign up, for free, I think that's a low bar.

Honestly, if this is the deal breaker is agree with Pex and say they're probably more than willing to lose a bit of feedback on this, because this is a heavy push in this new iteration of D&D

/Shrug, I can live without providing feedback, and just make a decision when the new edition comes out.

[stoutstien]

Oh I added a line about the fact that inspiration is supposedly lost when you start a long rest even though players can't technically start a long rest.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So they can't make me get a Google account, I agree they're not morally wrong, and I don't think they're evil meanies. I do, however, think they're still wrong with their line of reasoning and it's bad business not wanting to get feedback from multiple areas of the fanbase for an evergreen edition of the game they should want to broadly appeal to as many players as possible. Just my opinion, YMMV.


I also see them posting they've gotten more people to to playtest the Character Options stuff than all off D&DNext (175,000 play testers). Surely they realize downloading the playtest material is vastly different from actual playtesting the material and providing feedback. Something about rose-colored glasses comes to mind...

Two notes: It's very good business practice to on board people to the digital toolset you're building as soon as possible. That seems to be one of the primary goals here.

Second, they ask for each aspect of the playtest if you've actually play tested. Even just one day in they've got metrics on who formed their opinions with or without actually testing the product.

[animorte]

Second, they ask for each aspect of the playtest if you've actually play tested. Even just one day in they've got metrics on who formed their opinions with or without actually testing the product.

This is exactly what I was trying to say somewhere upthread. Yes, two weeks and partial content is not enough to form proper analysis and feedback, but I guarantee just a couple days is exponentially worse. And it’s not like they don’t know.

“Sure, I’ll take all the advice from all these people who clearly put forth little effort to even attempt to try it before judging it.”

Ever played a class you weren’t really sure of? There’s currently a different thread touching on that topic, but it took some actual game time and maybe even some leveling up to discover what you were really capable of.

[Psyren]

I disagree. Failure is still a learning experience and - rather crucially - the players are shown how impossible it is and aren't just told it.

1) Again, I'm not against failure.
2) Literally every result in this game consists of the GM telling you something. That's how D&D works. This isn't a movie.


Anyways, there's some nuance here. I'd allow a character with a negative modifier to attempt a DC 23 task, for instance, because while it is impossible for the character, it's not impossible for the party. Someone could cast Guidance or use Bardic Inspiration or what have you to make it possible.

If it's impossible for the individual but not a group, you can easily convey that without wasting time on a roll too.


Their mistake, then, limiting the feedback they'll receive only to a small portion of the game's players by design. Especially after so many years of letting anyone and everyone send them feedback on their own website, which makes considerably more sense.

While I agree that DnDBeyond users are by definition a portion of the overall D&D playerbase, a bigger mistake might be letting the survey be wide open and allowing a small group of disgruntled players to render the entire survey utterly useless with a botnet or a bunch of sockpuppets.

Which is not to say that this method 100% prevents that, but at the very least they can see stuff like a ton of DnDBeyond accounts created within hours of each other bombing the playtest or something, and purge those results from the dataset. Moreover, if doing this convinces some portion of people who weren't that interested in D&D Beyond or even aware of it to create an account there, so much the better.

[verbatim]

One thing I haven't seen much discussion on is the implications of making the initial grapple roll an attack roll vs the enemy's AC instead of a contested ability check.

One advantage of the current grapple rules that One DND would remove is how brutes enemies can grapple the minmaxed casters with high dex, shield equipment, and the shield spell.

[Pex]

Two notes: It's very good business practice to on board people to the digital toolset you're building as soon as possible. That seems to be one of the primary goals here.

Second, they ask for each aspect of the playtest if you've actually play tested. Even just one day in they've got metrics on who formed their opinions with or without actually testing the product.

I admitted I didn't playtest anything. I agree the difference between reading the material and playing the material is significant, but I and hopefully they see value in opinion just by reading. If someone doesn't like what he reads then he wouldn't buy it to play it. Already people on this Forum have declared this isn't for them. Playing the material deals with the workings of the mechanics. Reading is aesthetic value. Presentation matters.

[Brookshw]

Two notes: It's very good business practice to on board people to the digital toolset you're building as soon as possible. That seems to be one of the primary goals here.

Second, they ask for each aspect of the playtest if you've actually play tested. Even just one day in they've got metrics on who formed their opinions with or without actually testing the product.




While I agree that DnDBeyond users are by definition a portion of the overall D&D playerbase, a bigger mistake might be letting the survey be wide open and allowing a small group of disgruntled players to render the entire survey utterly useless with a botnet or a bunch of sockpuppets.

Which is not to say that this method 100% prevents that, but at the very least they can see stuff like a ton of DnDBeyond accounts created within hours of each other bombing the playtest or something, and purge those results from the dataset. Moreover, if doing this convinces some portion of people who weren't that interested in D&D Beyond or even aware of it to create an account there, so much the better.
Phffft. No. They're doing it through D&D Beyond so the terms of use apply and they can modify their product through the use of feedback without any obligation to provide royalties or other compensation for ideas which make their way into the product.

[stoutstien]

One thing I haven't seen much discussion on is the implications of making the initial grapple roll an attack roll vs the enemy's AC instead of a contested ability check.

One advantage of the current grapple rules that One DND would remove is how brutes enemies can grapple the minmaxed casters with high dex, shield equipment, and the shield spell.

Still can because attack rolls are easier to stack bonuses on than ability checks and AC "maxes" low. Attacks are designed to hit more often than not.
If anything grappling takes less investment now.

[EggKookoo]

1) Again, I'm not against failure.
2) Literally every result in this game consists of the GM telling you something. That's how D&D works. This isn't a movie.

Yeah, I don't get this. If the DC is more than 20 + all my combined bonuses (absent the new auto-success rule), I know I can't succeed. Why am I being asked to roll a die? Just describe the results of my attempt.

[Psyren]

Phffft. No. They're doing it through D&D Beyond so the terms of use apply and they can modify their product through the use of feedback without any obligation to provide royalties or other compensation for ideas which make their way into the product.

And not doing it through DNDBeyond would have prevented this... how exactly? :smallconfused:

Did you think all those other non-DDB surveys through their website entitled you to royalties of some kind?


Yeah, I don't get this. If the DC is more than 20 + all my combined bonuses (absent the new auto-success rule), I know I can't succeed. Why am I being asked to roll a die? Just describe the results of my attempt.

It doesn't even have to be a numerical impossibility. A human commoner has 10 Strength, numerically they could rip open manacles given a few minutes. That would make them a horrible containment method for a quasi-medieval society, yet they're clearly not.

[Brookshw]

And not doing it through DNDBeyond would have prevented this... how exactly? :smallconfused:

Did you think all those other non-DDB surveys through their website entitled you to royalties of some kind?


I assure you, there is a long and rich history of litigation in the gaming industry involving concepts and suggestions on games, and that, yes, some of that litigation does result in royalty/payment obligations. If their counsel wasn't insisting on some kind of T&Cs or sign on process to avoid the risk, they were asleep at the wheel. Doing this through D&D Beyond is currently the best way for them to ensure that submitters have accepted the terms and the content can be used freely, in their core product no less.

[Envyus]

And not doing it through DNDBeyond would have prevented this... how exactly? :smallconfused:

Did you think all those other non-DDB surveys through their website entitled you to royalties of some kind?



It doesn't even have to be a numerical impossibility. A human commoner has 10 Strength, numerically they could rip open manacles given a few minutes. That would make them a horrible containment method for a quasi-medieval society, yet they're clearly not.

I recall how they did the mannacles is that you can make an attempt to get out of them, but if you fail you can't repeat the roll (at least not for a while)

[Psyren]

I assure you, there is a long and rich history of litigation in the gaming industry involving concepts and suggestions on games, and that, yes, some of that litigation does result in royalty/payment obligations. If their counsel wasn't insisting on some kind of T&Cs or sign on process to avoid the risk, they were asleep at the wheel. Doing this through D&D Beyond is currently the best way for them to ensure that submitters have accepted the terms and the content can be used freely, in their core product no less.

I'm aware that lawsuits happen, but I don't think putting this playtest in DDB is closing some gaping legal loophole that's existed for the last decade and that no one but you has heretofore considered exploiting. Rather, I think they're putting it in DDB because they own it now and they intend 1DD to be tied more closely to that platform.

[verbatim]

Still can because attack rolls are easier to stack bonuses on than ability checks and AC "maxes" low. Attacks are designed to hit more often than not.
If anything grappling takes less investment now.


Less investment for a player, yes. In current 5e minions using grapple and shove is one of the limited ways that minions can interact with high AC casters.

By tying grapple resist to AC minmaxing AC is now stronger in D&D One than it was in 5e, which can be somewhat problematic at higher levels of optimized play.

[Batcathat]

I assure you, there is a long and rich history of litigation in the gaming industry involving concepts and suggestions on games, and that, yes, some of that litigation does result in royalty/payment obligations. If their counsel wasn't insisting on some kind of T&Cs or sign on process to avoid the risk, they were asleep at the wheel. Doing this through D&D Beyond is currently the best way for them to ensure that submitters have accepted the terms and the content can be used freely, in their core product no less.

Even assuming someone can claim ownership to an idea submitted in a survey (which may or may not be the case, I'm not quite sure but claiming ownership of an idea is generally pretty shaky) that could have easily been solved by having everyone check a little box saying that by submitting the form you give them the all rights to the material. Publishers, media and other companies do that all the time and I don't see how using something like D&D Beyond would make it legally safer in any way.

[stoutstien]

Less investment for a player, yes. In current 5e minions using grapple and shove is one of the limited ways that minions can interact with high AC casters.

By tying grapple resist to AC minmaxing AC is now stronger in D&D One than it was in 5e, which can be somewhat problematic at higher levels of optimized play.

If the are min/maxed they wouldn't attempt a check to begin with because the math doesn't favor breaking free when they can use forced movement or teleport to guaranteed freedom. Even then just attacking at advantage works out more grapples landing unless the target has both a negative str and dex modifier.

Few NPCs have a noticeable bonus to athletics so volume still works here. The prone and grapple acting as riders on the attacks has the best chance of working so on the npc front not much has changed. For example the kobold was a crappy grappler before unless they just made a ton of attempts. Now with pact tactics the odds have gone up even if they have -2 to the attack roll.

So while some NPCs got a minor nerf to grappling the vast majority of mooks and lower CR enemies you might actually sacrifice a shove/grapple attempt action on got a boost. remember they can do it as an AO now as well and that will probably be more useful than the damage unless they have a specific reaction on their block.


Trying to write rules for the Fringe cases of people purposely trying to break the game isn't a good idea.

[Brookshw]

I'm aware that lawsuits happen, but I don't think putting this playtest in DDB is closing some gaping legal loophole that's existed for the last decade and that no one but you has heretofore considered exploiting. Rather, I think they're putting it in DDB because they own it now and they intend 1DD to be tied more closely to that platform.

Apples and oranges, the risk profile is very different between commenting on a few classes/races - as playtest materials have been since 5e's launch - and an opportunity to address the entirety/majority of the core product. If a client came to me and said "this one thing in the book copied me", I couldn't make a strong case out of that, if one came to me and said "my ideas have been incorporated into just about every portion of the book", that's an entirely different situation. It's made worse in that they're soliciting the feedback. If I was their counsel, I know I'd have been insisting on something along the lines of DDB's T&Cs. Possibly my own bias of looking at things from a legal perspective, but anything else about steering traffic to DDB to promote the platform would be secondary to protecting the value of the product.

Edit:


Even assuming someone can claim ownership to an idea submitted in a survey (which may or may not be the case, I'm not quite sure but claiming ownership of an idea is generally pretty shaky) that could have easily been solved by having everyone check a little box saying that by submitting the form you give them the all rights to the material.

If you wanted to reinvent the wheel, sure, you could. But if they already have a wheel, why not use it?

[Batcathat]

If you wanted to reinvent the wheel, sure, you could. But if they already have a wheel, why not use it?

It's adding a check box to a survey, it's literally... what, one minute of work? Somehow I doubt that wanting to avoid that played any part of their choice of where to hold their survey.

[Psyren]

Apples and oranges, the risk profile is very different between commenting on a few classes/races - as playtest materials have been since 5e's launch - and an opportunity to address the entirety/majority of the core product. If a client came to me and said "this one thing in the book copied me", I couldn't make a strong case out of that, if one came to me and said "my ideas have been incorporated into just about every portion of the book", that's an entirely different situation. It's made worse in that they're soliciting the feedback. If I was their counsel, I know I'd have been insisting on something along the lines of DDB's T&Cs. Possibly my own bias of looking at things from a legal perspective, but anything else about steering traffic to DDB to promote the platform would be secondary to protecting the value of the product.

Well it's a pity no one thought of this very lucrative tactic in the last 8 years of non-DDB UA surveys then.


I recall how they did the mannacles is that you can make an attempt to get out of them, but if you fail you can't repeat the roll (at least not for a while)

Which breaks the fiction further. Does that one check represent the entire length of your incarceration? Once per hour/day/week? And no matter which you go with, there's still 1 in 20 commoners that will just break free of their manacles the first time they try.

Denying a check, in other words, should not be based solely on whether they can succeed if they roll a 20 or not - both before this rule and after.

[EggKookoo]

It's adding a check box to a survey, it's literally... what, one minute of work? Somehow I doubt that wanting to avoid that played any part of their choice of where to hold their survey.

I'm not debating the heart of the argument, just noting that where I work, adding a checkbox is:


An hour-long meeting with all stakeholders to discuss the impact the checkbox will have on engagement (i.e. will it scare people away?)
Reaching out to Legal to make sure we're authorized to make a claim on the submitter's ideas. Legal will get back to us in a few weeks. They also need to check current EU laws, which can vary widely by country.
A side discussion with Design over where, exactly, the checkbox should appear. We'll need to loop in the UX SMEs to make sure users aren't confused. Luckily this can happen in parallel while we're waiting for Legal. Unfortunately, because Design knows they have a few weeks at least before they need to come up with a final design, they will disappear and then hastily whip something together later.
Contacting Comms to make sure the language used for the checkbox is correct and is presenting the right "voice." They'll turn it into a paragraph.
Running it by the Accessibility SMEs to make sure we're not inadvertently degrading the experience for those who use screen readers.
A small handful of minutes for me (the lone developer) to add the element.


I would use blue text but this ain't no parody.

[Batcathat]

I'm not debating the heart of the argument, just noting that where I work, adding a checkbox is:


An hour-long meeting with all stakeholders to discuss the impact the checkbox will have on engagement (i.e. will it scare people away?)
Reaching out to Legal to make sure we're authorized to make a claim on the submitter's ideas. Legal will get back to us in a few weeks. They also need to check current EU laws, which can vary widely by country.
A side discussion with Design over where, exactly, the checkbox should appear. We'll need to loop in the UX SMEs to make sure users aren't confused. Luckily this can happen in parallel while we're waiting for Legal. Unfortunately, because Design knows they have a few weeks at least before they need to come up with a final design, they will disappear and then hastily whip something together later.
Contacting Comms to make sure the language used for the checkbox is correct and is presenting the right "voice." They'll turn it into a paragraph.
Running it by the Accessibility SMEs to make sure we're not inadvertently degrading the experience for those who use screen readers.
A small handful of minutes for me (the lone developer) to add the element.


I would use blue text but this ain't no parody.

Sure, if someone was adding this kind of checkbox for the very first time, something like this would be the case. But considering the countless examples of forms (surveys, submissions of various kinds, etc.) that use something like it (either as its own checkbox or as part of general terms) I suspect a lot of it could be skipped, not to mention that something like UX people would presumably look over the entire survey rather than this particular checkbox individually.

I do recognize a lot of what you're saying from my own job though, so you're certainly not wrong in general, I just think a lot of it wouldn't apply to this particular example.

[Brookshw]

Reaching out to Legal to make sure we're authorized to make a claim on the submitter's ideas. Legal will get back to us in a few weeks.

Guilty. Usually took us a bit to review anything that got posted online, doubly so if it was intended for audience interaction beyond simple viewing/reading. Part of it is other demands on our time, sometimes it's the content itself has a lot of baggage to review. I've wondered more than once how much leg work went into Hasbro getting so much of TSR's stuff up on Drive thru, that is not a review process I would have envied.

[Ortho]

2) Literally every result in this game consists of the GM telling you something. That's how D&D works. This isn't a movie.

'Show, don't tell' doesn't literally mean you should use visual formats over audio. It means that you should let your audience (players) arrive at their own conclusions, instead of just being told the result. It's the difference between reading a physics textbook and dropping two balls of different mass off the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

In other words, trying and failing is better than being denied the opportunity to try in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

Welp, I guess I'm not giving my feedback after all. That's one way to limit what results you'll get from a survey...

[Dork_Forge]

For those that want to provide feedback but not interact with Beyond:

http://wizards-of-the-coast.character-origins.alchemer.com/s3/

[Mastikator]

For those that want to provide feedback but not interact with Beyond:

http://wizards-of-the-coast.character-origins.alchemer.com/s3/

You are a true gentleman.

Also I wish WotC had released this on their own. And I hope everyone allergic to dndbeyond or knows someone who is will forward this link to them. And by hope I mean "do it".

[Zevox]

For those that want to provide feedback but not interact with Beyond:

http://wizards-of-the-coast.character-origins.alchemer.com/s3/
Thank y-


You are a true gentleman.

Also I wish WotC had released this on their own. And I hope everyone allergic to dndbeyond or knows someone who is will forward this link to them. And by hope I mean "do it".
:smallconfused: Wait, if that wasn't put up by WotC, is it even going to them? How's this work?

[P. G. Macer]

Thank y-


:smallconfused: Wait, if that wasn't put up by WotC, is it even going to them? How's this work?

As of this past spring, Wizards of the Coast owns D&D Beyond.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As of this past spring, Wizards of the Coast owns D&D Beyond.

The question is how a link to a survey that from DND Beyond, the only official location of the survey link, has been separated from requiring a DND Beyond account. How can you verify this information is even reaching WotC if its not through their provided link?

With that clarified, and fwiw, the url does appear to be identical save for a final user ID line, which does appear to be unique to whatever DND Beyond account opened the page. This provided link above is lacking that user ID part entirely, assuming it does submit the results it appears legitimate.

[Dork_Forge]

Thank y-


:smallconfused: Wait, if that wasn't put up by WotC, is it even going to them? How's this work?

To clarify, this is a direct link to the survey you'd get to through D&D Beyond, which is how WotC has chosen to maneuver people into their ecosystem (as they own them now).

The separate link was not WotC provided, but I try to support people that don't want to use Beyond e.g. I post PDFs of free materials and so on that require an account.


The question is how a link to a survey that from DND Beyond, the only official location of the survey link, has been separated from requiring a DND Beyond account. How can you verify this information is even reaching WotC if its not through their provided link?

With that clarified, and fwiw, the url does appear to be identical save for a final user ID line, which does appear to be unique to whatever DND Beyond account opened the page. This provided link above is lacking that user ID part entirely, assuming it does submit the results it appears legitimate.

WotC are just doing the surveys as normal, but ran through Beyond as a starting point, it's not like Beyond is actually the hosting service for the survey.

I did the survey this way and it showed as complete and submitted when I finished.

[ProsecutorGodot]

WotC are just doing the surveys as normal, but ran through Beyond as a starting point, it's not like Beyond is actually the hosting service for the survey.

I did the survey this way and it showed as complete and submitted when I finished.

I have a suspicion (and this might just be my ignorance of the technical aspects working behind the scenes) that the user ID line (which I verified to be different between accounts) means that they might have information if an associated DND Beyond account has submitted the survey.

It's entirely possible that Psyren is correct and this might be a precaution against getting bad result data. Of course we can't say for certain but I still think it's fair to say the best way to make sure your opinion is shared and validated is to simply create an account. It could also simply be nothing, but if you do truly care for DND going forward it's a very very small step to take.

[Dork_Forge]

I have a suspicion (and this might just be my ignorance of the technical aspects working behind the scenes) that the user ID line (which I verified to be different between accounts) means that they might have information if an associated DND Beyond account has submitted the survey.

It's entirely possible that Psyren is correct and this might be a precaution against getting bad result data. Of course we can't say for certain but I still think it's fair to say the best way to make sure your opinion is shared and validated is to simply create an account. It could also simply be nothing, but if you do truly care for DND going forward it's a very very small step to take.

I would have thought if it was a filtering step they would have required a user ID as a gate, but I could be wrong.

To be clear though, I have a Beyond account that I use and buy stuff on, I just try to assist those that don't want to use it, since WotC is pushing things that way.

[JackPhoenix]

For those that want to provide feedback but not interact with Beyond:

http://wizards-of-the-coast.character-origins.alchemer.com/s3/

Well, I certainly DO hope that works. While it's impossible to get an answer from everyone with interest in the game, limiting the survey to a very specific subgroup of players will lead to bad results just like letting in bots will.

[Psyren]

The survey link generated from my DnDBeyond contained a userID. I can't vouch for what the non-ID link posted will do or how they will treat that data.

I suggest, if you want your feedback to carry the most weight possible, that you bite the bullet and register for DnDBeyond.


'Show, don't tell' doesn't literally mean you should use visual formats over audio. It means that you should let your audience (players) arrive at their own conclusions, instead of just being told the result. It's the difference between reading a physics textbook and dropping two balls of different mass off the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

In other words, trying and failing is better than being denied the opportunity to try in the first place.

1) Yet again, I am not stopping anyone from trying anything. Roll is not try. Stop conflating the two.

2) "Arrive at their own conclusions" is fine when you're talking about the subjective theme or underlying message of a work. Not when you're literally saying what their actions do. There is no "their own conclusions" then, it's stating an objective truth about your world. I can't interpret my way through a locked door.

[Zevox]

With that clarified, and fwiw, the url does appear to be identical save for a final user ID line, which does appear to be unique to whatever DND Beyond account opened the page. This provided link above is lacking that user ID part entirely, assuming it does submit the results it appears legitimate.
Ah, I see, thank you. That makes sense. I've gone through and submitted my feedback now, and it's at least appeared to work. Kept everything as constructive as possible, even offered some praise to a few things, with my harshest criticism being reserved for the changes to critical hits, none of which I like at all nor think can be turned into anything that would make the game better in any way besides just dropping them.


To clarify, this is a direct link to the survey you'd get to through D&D Beyond, which is how WotC has chosen to maneuver people into their ecosystem (as they own them now).

The separate link was not WotC provided, but I try to support people that don't want to use Beyond e.g. I post PDFs of free materials and so on that require an account.
And thank you for that. :smallsmile:


I have a suspicion (and this might just be my ignorance of the technical aspects working behind the scenes) that the user ID line (which I verified to be different between accounts) means that they might have information if an associated DND Beyond account has submitted the survey.

It's entirely possible that Psyren is correct and this might be a precaution against getting bad result data. Of course we can't say for certain but I still think it's fair to say the best way to make sure your opinion is shared and validated is to simply create an account. It could also simply be nothing, but if you do truly care for DND going forward it's a very very small step to take.
If they choose to throw out my feedback because it's not associated with a D&D Beyond account, that's their choice to make I suppose. But I won't be giving them access to my Google account information just to provide feedback about a game I like, however much I may like it. Especially not when they've been taking that same feedback without it for literally years.

[Dork_Forge]

I don’t, I wish that link had not been found cause I don’t want grognards who wish to remain dinosaurs out of stubbornness to have any voice in development of the game.

How wildly offensive of you. I'm 28, I know people younger than me that don't want to give their personal information to companies as much as possible.

And a person's preference in these kinds of matters has no impact on the value of their input on the game.

It just comes across like you're lashing out at people that don't want to 'get on board with progress' without considering any reasoning, and tarring all of them with the same brush in the process.

[Envyus]

How wildly offensive of you. I'm 28, I know people younger than me that don't want to give their personal information to companies as much as possible.

And a person's preference in these kinds of matters has no impact on the value of their input on the game.

It just comes across like you're lashing out at people that don't want to 'get on board with progress' without considering any reasoning, and tarring all of them with the same brush in the process.

I am the same age as you, but I have run out of patience for some people, and consider refusing to to interact with new things cause they are new a pet peeve as of late.

While I am sorry about how hostilely I said it, m core belief is still that I would rather just have Beyond Users shape the way forward.

[Zevox]

How wildly offensive of you. I'm 28, I know people younger than me that don't want to give their personal information to companies as much as possible.

And a person's preference in these kinds of matters has no impact on the value of their input on the game.

It just comes across like you're lashing out at people that don't want to 'get on board with progress' without considering any reasoning, and tarring all of them with the same brush in the process.
Indeed. I'm by no means what anyone could reasonably call a "grognard." I'm not much older than Dork_Forge, I started with 3.5E, skipped 4E entirely*, and 5E brought my interest back after a friend told me about it. I'm fine with 5E as it is, including recent books like Tasha's. My input here is mostly mild - there's a lot here that's either good or fine, just a few things I think are significant problems to point out. Hell, I'm not even one of the ones out here complaining about the natural 1/20 changes, since my group already plays the game that way, so it has no effect on us at all.

*No, I never played Pathfinder, I just dropped out of D&D and its like entirely for those years. Mostly due to hearing about what was being done to the Forgotten Realms, when liking the FR novels of the day was one of the main things that had me interested in D&D in the first place at the time.

At the same time, I'm someone who is creeped out by online data collection and the way it can be used to track people and build profiles on them, and wish to actively minimize how much of that I feed into that. I have no other reason besides giving this feedback to be involved with D&D Beyond, and since they've been taking this same feedback without it for years, I'm not going to just blindly go along with this change to how they're doing this. Now, if this account weren't tied to anything else, and I was just creating a user name while giving them an e-mail like on a forum or other such basic website, I might well do it, even if I'd prefer not to. That they're asking for Google (or Apple) account information instead is why it becomes a hard no.


I am the same age as you, but I have run out of patience for some people, and consider refusing to to interact with new things cause they are new a pet peeve as of late.

While I am sorry about how hostilely I said it, m core belief is still that I would rather just have Beyond Users shape the way forward.
"Because it's new" isn't even remotely the reason I, or anyone else I've seen express a similar opinion, have for not wanting to created a D&D Beyond account.

[Mastikator]

I don’t, I wish that link had not been found cause I don’t want grognards who wish to remain dinosaurs out of stubbornness to have any voice in development of the game.
On second thought I think that survey counts only as one survey taker. I've noticed I can take the survey multiple times with my own account and I'm pretty sure that it would just override my previous answers.

I DO wish that WotC would take feedback from people who do not wish to sign up for google or facebook. But I realize that they must protect themselves from cyber attacks and the survey is more valid if they restrict it. If anyone can take it anonymously then someone can submit answers multiple times.

Besides ludditism regarding using dndbeyond I do think that grognards have a valued perspective on D&D, people who play it more (and spend money on books) should be considered before people who are new to D&D. Newbies have less knowledge about what makes for good D&D and are more prone to make mistakes regarding what are good rules.

[Envyus]

"Because it's new" isn't even remotely the reason I, or anyone else I've seen express a similar opinion, have for not wanting to created a D&D Beyond account.

Indeed your reasons are paranoia something I am also not super sympathetic towards anymore.

[Envyus]

Besides ludditism regarding using dndbeyond I do think that grognards have a valued perspective on D&D, people who play it more (and spend money on books) should be considered before people who are new to D&D. Newbies have less knowledge about what makes for good D&D and are more prone to make mistakes regarding what are good rules.

I don’t agree their opinions are just as valid.

[Dork_Forge]

Indeed your reasons are paranoia something I am also not super sympathetic towards anymore.

There is nothing paranoid about how frequent data breaches at various companies, it's probably several times a year I get an email about some breach on something I signed up to over the last decade or more and how many old passwords and emails they got from it.

Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean that it isn't important to other people, or people in general, and whilst you're perfectly entitled to airing your opinion it seems entirely irrelevant to a person's thoughts on the game itself.

[Zevox]

Indeed your reasons are paranoia something I am also not super sympathetic towards anymore.
If that's what you think, I can only assume you're somehow not familiar with the issues I'm referring to, which are quite publicly well-known and real. There are entirely data collection companies that exist to do nothing but take data from people online and build profiles of them, in order to sell that data to companies that can use it for various purposes, primarily targeted advertising. It's a large part of how websites that provide free services online function. Data breaches of that information are often newsworthy events.


I don’t agree their opinions are just as valid.
Then I'm afraid you're the jerk here, considering others' opinions and feelings less valid than your own for entirely arbitrary reasons.

To note, I also disagree with Mastikator's take that long-time players' opinions are more valid than newbies'. Both are valid and important, in part because of the different perspectives they can offer and different parts of the player base they each represent. Though I don't believe it's only, or even primarily, older players whom this move will exclude. Quite the contrary, it's more casual players, who may not even have heard of D&D Beyond nor have any interest in it if they did, but would fill out a survey if they saw it linked somewhere online and it was easy to do so. Older players are more likely to be long-timers who are engaged in fan sites like this one and will therefore easily know about D&D Beyond and the playtest.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Besides ludditism regarding using dndbeyond I do think that grognards have a valued perspective on D&D, people who play it more (and spend money on books) should be considered before people who are new to D&D. Newbies have less knowledge about what makes for good D&D and are more prone to make mistakes regarding what are good rules.

Hey, that's me, the early DND Beyond adopter! Someone who spends a significant amount of time and money on the hobby and is relatively new (compared to many of the posters here at least) with only ~6 years under my belt.

I didn't read the comment as an attack on any "grognard" opinion, their opinions are valid, it just doesn't make sense to refuse to share them through intended avenues because the hobby is moving forward into a new medium, digital tabletop.

I will say though, a statement like "Newbies have less knowledge about what makes for good D&D and are more prone to make mistakes regarding what are good rules." is a bit unfair. 5e's bar of entry isn't particularly high and if your experience is limited to only your table with your close friends, it's all good D&D.

My hot take as well, experienced players are just as prone to making mistakes, putting "years of experience playing [previous edition] of D&D" behind a statement of "why my opinion on [current edition] is objectively more informed than the newer players" doesn't sound all that great, does it? Sure, it's great for drawing inspiration and making comparisons but at some point they've got to realize that there's a subset of "new to 5e players" who might have more experience with this edition despite them having played D&D's collective editions for twice that time or more.


There is nothing paranoid about how frequent data breaches at various companies, it's probably several times a year I get an email about some breach on something I signed up to over the last decade or more and how many old passwords and emails they got from it.

Just because you don't care about something doesn't mean that it isn't important to other people, or people in general, and whilst you're perfectly entitled to airing your opinion it seems entirely irrelevant to a person's thoughts on the game itself.
You can make a fresh google account, a fresh DND Beyond account, only use them for the surveys and burn them down when you're done with them. Falsify every bit of information, sign up under a VPN, have a friend sign up on your behalf and answer the question under their account.

This might be cynical of me to say but if you're already using the internet frequently then they've got you figured out.

For example, though not a single one of our accounts are linked, since my brother and I are in the same household and use the same IP address we often see the same videos or news articles recommended to us. Videos we have watched separately from each other show up, things my parents have talked about show up. I took a photo of an outdoor camping stove to show my family and the thing has stayed on my newsfeed for months.

The best you can do is be careful, very careful, but I think trying to actively avoid making these accounts is a lost cause already.

[Psyren]

Let's all take a breath; whether other people choose to make an account or not is certainly up to them, and what WotC does with survey feedback disassociated with a DDB account (or coming from a brand new one) is similarly up to them.


What I found interesting about the survey is that they asked for overall feedback on the d20 test rule, and then more nuanced feedback on the critical, autosuuccess and autofail changes. I was really hoping they'd do it this way, and I'd love to see how the data shook out between the four.

[Brookshw]

My hot take as well, experienced players are just as prone to making mistakes, putting "years of experience playing [previous edition] of D&D" behind a statement of "why my opinion on [current edition] is objectively more informed than the newer players" doesn't sound all that great, does it?

I'll go a step further. After 6 editions I've realized I just don't care about the rules anymore. Heck, only reason I bothered with this one is because it's the only thing my player's kids - who I guess are also my players now - know, they literally handed me DoMM and asked me to run before I had seen the inside of any 5e book. I probably don't have a great opinion about the details of the game, because I don't care anymore, a general understanding of the framework is all that's required, the rest we'll just fudge as necessary to have fun. I can't recall a session in months where sometime over the following week one of us wouldn't text the group (we'll, the adults in the group anyway) and say something like "here's the rules I messed up last week", it's almost a tradition now. If you want someone to analyze fine detail in the game, this older player definitely isn't your guy.

[Kane0]

What I found interesting about the survey is that they asked for overall feedback on the d20 test rule, and then more nuanced feedback on the critical, autosuuccess and autofail changes. I was really hoping they'd do it this way, and I'd love to see how the data shook out between the four.

Good thing they did too, really leaves space to put down thoughts on the matter

[rlc]

I mostly agreed with the general consensus, but I definitely think that there should be dwarven subraces. Hill and mountain dwarves can still be lumped together (I’d probably just call them “rugged” dwarves), but there are other possible subraces that might not be able to be represented by feats, like duergar. They can always call them variant options, but it seems like a waste to just go with one dwarf when you can just have subraces.
Same with halflings, though there are probably less options, if you don’t count stout as a separate lineage.

[Leon]

How long before that "free account*" becomes you can only submit feedback after buying a product on Beyond or after subscribing to the small (for now) fee premium service because you certainly know that when they launch the Virtual Tabletop its going to be a barebone version till you cough up the dough.


*in so far as only being able to register via two methods is a free account

[MisterD]

Any Idea what will happen to Mountain Dwarf characters with the two +2 to stats?
How do you explain a Dwarf that never set foot on or near a mountain getting Stonecunning

[Leon]

Any Idea what will happen to Mountain Dwarf characters with the two +2 to stats?
How do you explain a Dwarf that never set foot on or near a mountain getting Stonecunning

With Stats being tied to backgrounds for some bizarre reason they lose that extra +1