Borrowing from 1D&D

[paladinn]

I've been away for a bit, so I'm not sure what all might have been posted. And I know the 1D&D stuff is still beta/playtest stuff. But I wondered if anyone had tried adapting some of what's come out about 1D&D into their 5e game/s. Anything good, bad or ugly?

Personally the changes to the Ranger have been the most appealing, and I've been pondering how to adapt what parts of it. Prepared casting is a definite:)

Thoughts?

[ProsecutorGodot]

We've been using the new feats, races, spells and long resting rules. Nothing's really broken open yet.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I've been away for a bit, so I'm not sure what all might have been posted. And I know the 1D&D stuff is still beta/playtest stuff. But I wondered if anyone had tried adapting some of what's come out about 1D&D into their 5e game/s. Anything good, bad or ugly?

Personally the changes to the Ranger have been the most appealing, and I've been pondering how to adapt what parts of it. Prepared casting is a definite:)

Thoughts?

I haven't deliberately brought anything over but have openly allowed it at my table. I have plans for a Druid, Cleric and Ranger at some point using the new rules.

[animorte]

My favorite part of it is Influence (Action) and how that is incorporated into social interaction. I've been using that alongside Strixhaven relationships to flesh out the social pillar of the game in a way that feels legitimately rewarding. It makes NPCs feel more significant, brings them to life.


I borrowed the new exhaustion rules.
I also did this, much better.

[Mastikator]

I borrowed the new exhaustion rules. And the bardic inspiration via reaction rules.
Players love the change so far.

I have been considering the light weapon property and two weapon fighting rules, but I'm waiting for the martial class playtest for that.

[Rafaelfras]

My table got a new player, a devotion paladin. I used the holy weapon as a bonus action

[Ir0ns0ul]

Rangers only. We have tested and enjoyed both the prepared casters thing and Hunters Mark not being Concentration. It was great.

[Psyren]

The light weapon thing is definitely a rule change we were interested in - especially if it carries over to monks and martial arts, if not flurry.

One we grabbed immediately was feats at level 1, as well as level prerequisites on feats.

[paladinn]

I'm curious about the 1D&D ranger features. The PHB ranger was obviously not-good, especially given all the UA attempts at reworks. I thought some of the mods from Xanathar's and Tasha's were good, but it all needed to be folded into what came before.

The Favored Enemy feature seems to have lost most if not all of its flavor. Historically it's been about various bonuses against "species enemies" that threaten people. In 0e-1e, it was pretty much all humanoids and giants. After that the possibilities were increased but the scope was narrowed. In the 5e PHB it was virtually just a ribbon. But in 1D&D it just seems like a vehicle to provide access to Hunters Mark without concentration or preparation.

Does HM still consume spell slots? Maybe it's become even more a parallel to the paladin's smite?

Also, the upcasting benefit from the HM spell description in the PHB has to do with maintaining concentration. But with Favored Enemy, that's not an issue anymore. So what if anything happens if you upcast?

[Psyren]

Does HM still consume spell slots?

Yes - the concentration free version still needs to be cast and will still use up a spell slot (but it's always prepared.)



Also, the upcasting benefit from the HM spell description in the PHB has to do with maintaining concentration. But with Favored Enemy, that's not an issue anymore. So what if anything happens if you upcast?

As above, it still needs a spell slot, so you can use a higher one. It lasts for "its full duration, or until you end it early as a bonus action or become incapacitated." This is the case no matter what spell slot you use to cast it.

[paladinn]

Yes - the concentration free version still needs to be cast and will still use up a spell slot (but it's always prepared.)

As above, it still needs a spell slot, so you can use a higher one. It lasts for "its full duration, or until you end it early as a bonus action or become incapacitated." This is the case no matter what spell slot you use to cast it.

Soo there's really no benefit in upcasting?

Compared to the paladin's smite, which scales with the spell slot level?

I've been pondering a spell-less ranger. Spell-less paladins are easy because you can just use spell slots as smite-fuel. Higher levels add more damage. I guess HM-fuel wouldn't work the same way. Same with using them to fuel the Nature's Veil later on.

[Mastikator]

Soo there's really no benefit in upcasting?

Compared to the paladin's smite, which scales with the spell slot level?

I've been pondering a spell-less ranger. Spell-less paladins are easy because you can just use spell slots as smite-fuel. Higher levels add more damage. I guess HM-fuel wouldn't work the same way. Same with using them to fuel the Nature's Veil later on.
Hunter's mark at higher levels:
"At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd or 4th level, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 8 hours. When you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 24 hours."

The benefit is that it lasts longer, both for rangers and non-rangers. Rangers spending a 5th level spell slot on hunter's mark would keep it online for 24 hours without concentration.

[paladinn]

Hunter's mark at higher levels:
"At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd or 4th level, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 8 hours. When you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can maintain your concentration on the spell for up to 24 hours."

The benefit is that it lasts longer, both for rangers and non-rangers. Rangers spending a 5th level spell slot on hunter's mark would keep it online for 24 hours without concentration.

But in 1D&D, rangers get this Without concentration anyeway via their Favored Enemy feature. But it does still take a spell slot. It doesn't seem there's any benefit in upcasting

[Mastikator]

But in 1D&D, rangers get this Without concentration anyeway via their Favored Enemy feature. But it does still take a spell slot. It doesn't seem there's any benefit in upcasting

What do you mean anyway? Upcasting hunter's mark does not remove concentration in the 2014 version, it just lasts longer.
In 1dnd a ranger casting hunter's mark with a 3rd level spell slot has it active for 8 hours without concentration.
In 1dnd a druid casting hunter's mark with a 3rd level spell slot has it active for 8 hours with concentration.

The benefit for upcasting for anyone casting it is the longer duration.
The benefit for being a ranger is the lack of concentration. (rangers also get an added benefit at higher levels: they use bigger dice for hunter's mark, so it keeps getting better for rangers)

[paladinn]

What do you mean anyway? Upcasting hunter's mark does not remove concentration in the 2014 version, it just lasts longer.
In 1dnd a ranger casting hunter's mark with a 3rd level spell slot has it active for 8 hours without concentration.
In 1dnd a druid casting hunter's mark with a 3rd level spell slot has it active for 8 hours with concentration.

The benefit for upcasting for anyone casting it is the longer duration.
The benefit for being a ranger is the lack of concentration. (rangers also get an added benefit at higher levels: they use bigger dice for hunter's mark, so it keeps getting better for rangers)

Thanks for clarifying. Like I said, I'm trying to work out a model for a spell-less ranger. Favored Enemy/ Hunters Mark in 1D&D works off spell slots. So does Nature's Veil. NV does the same thing regardless of spell slot level; HM breaks on spell slot level 3 and 5, so 2 and 4 don't do anything "better" than the lower level slot. It may be better to convert all this to spell points and work off that.

So everyone seems to like the 1D&D ranger better. Are there any other classes/features that people particularly like?

[Psyren]

Soo there's really no benefit in upcasting?

Yes, there is. "The full duration" is determined by the slot you cast it out of.


I've been pondering a spell-less ranger.

I think your best bet there is starting with Scout Rogue or similar.



So everyone seems to like the 1D&D ranger better. Are there any other classes/features that people particularly like?

According to Crawford, all the races except Ardling and the first Dragonborn have gotten high marks so far. Ranger is the only class that probably won't undergo a bunch more revisions at this point. (Which is fine, pretty much every 2014 class went through a bunch of revisions too.)

[Oramac]

I've taken the Exhaustion rules, for sure.

Also, I'm experimenting with the Channel Divinity rules as well. Mainly for use in my homebrew, but I'm currently playtesting it so it works out. So far, I like it.

[Theodoxus]

According to Crawford, all the races except Ardling and the first Dragonborn have gotten high marks so far. Ranger is the only class that probably won't undergo a bunch more revisions at this point. (Which is fine, pretty much every 2014 class went through a bunch of revisions too.)

So, they're gonna stop updating the Ranger, like they did the 2014 Barbarian, and then other classes get better iterations of their abilities? Compare Hunter's Horde Breaker (free attack against secondary target in range) vs Berserker's Frenzy (bonus action attack, causes exhaustion) and tell me which came first and was never revised, much less looked at again. (I mean, I don't really want to rehash all of 2015 again, I get Frenzy is a BA without a qualifying attack action, allowing you to do all kinds of shenanigans - but none of which should generate exhaustion, especially since 90% of the time, a berserker is going to use it as part of their attack action to get 3 attacks a round. That at least shouldn't cause exhaustion. Sure, Move -> Dash -> BA, exhaustion, I guess; Move -> Shove -> BA, same, I guess; but if the Ranger gets an exhaustion-less 3rd attack, why can't the Barbi, known for their stamina?)

@OP, I haven't incorporated any of the various ideas from D&DOne, though some are intriguing. I have a hard time trying to incorporate piecemeal options without knowing the underlying mechanics - and since WotC famously never tells us the why of something, I want the entire system to review what can be easily modded vs what might make unnatural breaks. I don't know if that makes sense or not...

[Atranen]

I've used the exhaustion rule, which is strictly better than the 5e one. I would implement the TWF rule, but I haven't had a player want to make that kind of character yet.

[Psyren]

So, they're gonna stop updating the Ranger, like they did the 2014 Barbarian, and then other classes get better iterations of their abilities?

1) No actually, they specifically said an 80+ doesn't stop them from working on the class further.

2) I was talking about base Ranger, not Hunter. Hunter got a lower score than its parent class, and is indeed getting options back that it lost.


I've taken the Exhaustion rules, for sure.


I've used the exhaustion rule, which is strictly better than the 5e one. I would implement the TWF rule, but I haven't had a player want to make that kind of character yet.

The new exhaustion rules actually make me excited to play a Berserker, though ideally it would need short rest exhaustion reduction.

[Oramac]

The new exhaustion rules actually make me excited to play a Berserker, though ideally it would need short rest exhaustion reduction.

Yes! They could maybe do something like the Channel Divinity uses, but in reverse. Remove one level of exhaustion on a SR, two levels on a LR. Or maybe you ignore the first level of exhaustion once per LR. IDK. There's lots of options.

[Kane0]

I like the cleric split between extra channels, extra skills and extra weapon/armor proficiencies. Thats getting borrowed for sure.

[Theodoxus]

I like the cleric split between extra channels, extra skills and extra weapon/armor proficiencies. Thats getting borrowed for sure.

I had forgotten about that update. I thought that was pretty slick too. Kinda helps with my more agnostic approach to Clerical power - one god, many sects. "How come the Church of War gets better armor and weapons than the Church of Light?"

[JLandan]

I'm not using races, pardon me ...species at all. They're all amorphous blobs.

And I will wait until more is out on classes to render judgement.

I do use the exhaustion (way better), influence (simplified and easy) and jump action (so much better than movement variances) rules.

[Envyus]

I'm not using races, pardon me ...species at all. They're all amorphous blobs.

And I will wait until more is out on classes to render judgement.

I do use the exhaustion (way better), influence (simplified and easy) and jump action (so much better than movement variances) rules.

Species are largely more interesting than the 2014 versions in my opinion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

and jump action (so much better than movement variances) rules.

I'm sorry, what?

Please tell me why you think this, I'm very curious because the Jump Action is, in my opinion, probably the second worst proposed rules change 1d&d has tried to make so far.

[Mastikator]

I'm sorry, what?

Please tell me why you think this, I'm very curious because the Jump Action is, in my opinion, probably the second worst proposed rules change 1d&d has tried to make so far.

Jump action was removed in the latest playtest. Funnily it scored well, but the written responses convinced them not to do that.

[sambojin]

So, it's a part of the move action now?

[Kane0]

Its just a part of movement, same as climbing and swimming. And movement isnt an action.
As it should be, IMO.

[Theodoxus]

Its just a part of movement, same as climbing and swimming. And movement isnt an action.
As it should be, IMO.

As long as it's worded to work like 5E movement, where it can be broken up to allow other actions to take place during said movement, sure. I do not ever want to back to 3.X style movement where it's a completely separate action that had a few very specifically worded exceptions that allowed for staggered movement between things like attacks.

But I do miss having movement being an action that can be swapped out for other actions, so I'm not wholly against the idea.

[Bane's Wolf]

I do use the exhaustion (way better), influence (simplified and easy) and jump action (so much better than movement variances) rules.

Hi :smallbiggrin:

Sorry if we are over-reacting to one little thing you said, but i am genuinely curious about the jump action. I'm possibly one of the few who was intrigued by Jump becoming an action. Unfortunately, i haven't had time or players to personally test it out at home.

What made you use it?
How has it worked out at your table?
Please tell me why you like it over the old way?

I'm going to test this myself once i can herd my players together, and i'm pretty bummed it was removed from playtest so quickly. Even if it was bad, i would have liked to see how it interacted with the warrior classes before it got removed.

[Joe the Rat]

I'm running Strixhaven using the 1D&D rules (for what has been developed - the rest gets a bit shoehorned). Here are the things my players want to carry back over to the "regular rules" campaigns:

Exhaustion. In addition to the deeper levels (10 to dead) it's a lot less immediately debilitating. Pulling all-nighters for exams nets a -1 rather than ability check disadvantage, which makes the chocie less math-intensive (do I take disadvantage to get an extra reroll? What are my standing odds? which is my better overall bet, given my proficiencies?). While it is fun for us probability wonks, it's fiddly for other player types. It also makes berserkers a bit more berserkable, and can expand options for things that inflict exhaustion without creating death spirals. I also like that this means exhaustion can stack with other debilitators.

Reaction buffs. It's a little weird from a concept point, but plays so much smoother. It also makes resistance a bit more useful, and cuts down on the amount of butt slapping involved in spellcasting.

1 Fails, 20 Succeeds. We do like things a little swingy, and it gives everyone a chance to deliver their epic successes or ridiculous pratfalls on any check. But we are also running this with the recognition that there are impossible to fail / impossible to succeed tasks, but I may ask for a roll to see how well you succeed / how far you get on your attempt.

Unlucky Inspiration. I know they dropped this from later iterations but "Inspiration on a 1" was one of the better ideas to making inspiration flow like water, particularly since crap dice luck happens. The only difficulty is figuring out when Halflings get it. Since you are allowed to give this HI to any party member, I'm inclined to make it for each roll, making the little bastards fonts of good fortune for everyone.

[JLandan]

Hi :smallbiggrin:

Sorry if we are over-reacting to one little thing you said, but i am genuinely curious about the jump action. I'm possibly one of the few who was intrigued by Jump becoming an action. Unfortunately, i haven't had time or players to personally test it out at home.

What made you use it?
How has it worked out at your table?
Please tell me why you like it over the old way?

I'm going to test this myself once i can herd my players together, and i'm pretty bummed it was removed from playtest so quickly. Even if it was bad, i would have liked to see how it interacted with the warrior classes before it got removed.

The jump rules as written do not factor in skill in athletics or acrobatics. It is merely score alone; with no check, there is no possibility of failure, you know if you can make it or not. To me, that isn't adventurous, cinematic or dramatic.

The UA Jump Action rules do take skill into account. The act of jumping is more random, sure. But you should have to decide whether or not to take the risk when you make a jump. As an action, it separates jump movement from walking speed movement, so it doesn't chew up your movement. It does use your action, but I have a house rule to allow it as a bonus action if you have a feature that allows Dash as a bonus action.

Right now, I am running Adventures in Rokugan. Most of the players are coming in from an anime point of view, so there's a lot of jumping around. I also have a house rule for melee attacks from above to have +2 to hit (Advantage seemed too much, and I know this is a leftover from 3.5). So if the jump is a bonus action and the landing spot is within reach of the target, the attack gets +2.

Further, I house rule that if the jump is short, but the target spot is within reach, I allow a Strength or Dexterity saving throw to catch the edge. The character can make a simple climb on a subsequent turn to get up.

I like it better. Some don't. That's one of the cool things about this game. Slightly different mechanics and experimentation with rules is part of the game.

[Psyren]

I vastly preferred it happening on a 20. Natural 1s should evoke that *gasp* or thrill of doom/despair (unless you're a Halfling, in which case they should feel fantastic because you have that built-in protection, and even then there's still that nailbiting moment where you think the dice is about to land on 1 again!) And I think Inspiration on a 1 muddies that (low number good?), not quite as badly as things like THACO did, but still. And for me, the "hot streak" of getting two or more 20s in a row because you keep getting and spending your advantage would just feel unparalleled.

[Bane's Wolf]

The jump rules as written do not factor in skill in athletics or acrobatics. It is merely score alone; with no check, there is no possibility of failure, you know if you can make it or not. To me, that isn't adventurous, cinematic or dramatic.

The UA Jump Action rules do take skill into account. The act of jumping is more random, sure. But you should have to decide whether or not to take the risk when you make a jump. As an action, it separates jump movement from walking speed movement, so it doesn't chew up your movement. It does use your action, but I have a house rule to allow it as a bonus action if you have a feature that allows Dash as a bonus action.

Right now, I am running Adventures in Rokugan. Most of the players are coming in from an anime point of view, so there's a lot of jumping around. I also have a house rule for melee attacks from above to have +2 to hit (Advantage seemed too much, and I know this is a leftover from 3.5). So if the jump is a bonus action and the landing spot is within reach of the target, the attack gets +2.

Further, I house rule that if the jump is short, but the target spot is within reach, I allow a Strength or Dexterity saving throw to catch the edge. The character can make a simple climb on a subsequent turn to get up.

I like it better. Some don't. That's one of the cool things about this game. Slightly different mechanics and experimentation with rules is part of the game.

Excellent :smallwink:
Thank you very much for the insight