OneD&D UA - THE CLERIC AND REVISED SPECIES

[Melil12]

Hmmm I always viewed base DCs around 10 and then modified it upwards or downwards if the PCs RP or help eachother.

So if a barbarian needed to roll an intelligence test I would start at 10, consider how likely the PC is to know this information and modify it.

I don’t think I ever did a DC lower than 8 or so though … never a dc 5

[animorte]

Would you consider giving automatic success to a character who has +2 in the relevant stat mod and +2 from proficiency?

I think that makes perfect sense. I tested a concept (and mentioned it sometime recently) about increasing the rate of proficiency, 1 at level 1-3, 2 at 4-5, all the up to 10 at level 20.

The purpose being that you will consistently get better at what you’re supposed to be better at, more clearly. Then auto-succeed if total ability mod + PB = DC.

[Psyren]

Exactly. The current values seem to presume that the DM will only call for checks where the best person in the group gets to roll for it.

That seems to be what the labels are based on at least. I agree that it can be misleading and that these arguments will never stop until they get bumped down a notch.

Would you consider giving automatic success to a character who has +2 in the relevant stat mod and +2 from proficiency?

For a DC 5 check? 99% of the time I wouldn't even ask for a roll.

[Segev]

Even then you succeed on a 6. Can it come up sometimes, sure, but not nearly enough to justify these arguments imo.

Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?

I wouldn't make any of those DC 5 if they matter, so I stand by my opinion.

I would argue that the rolls do matter even at DC 5. Would you not make a DC 10 roll for a PC who has a +4 to the check for the same reason? Would you never call for a DC 15 roll if a PC had a +9?

It seems like strange decision-making to say DC 5 is something that should never be the DC for a roll "that matters," but DC 15 is totally okay for it.

[Psyren]

Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?

Just as bad for who?

[Segev]

Just as bad for who?

I am speaking of objective numbers. "Bad" may be the wrong term.

The chance of success on a DC 15 for somebody with an 8 stat and no proficiency is 25%. The chance of failure for the same person on a DC 5 check is also 25%. Why is DC 15 okay to call for, but not DC 5?

[Psyren]

I am speaking of objective numbers. "Bad" may be the wrong term.

The chance of success on a DC 15 for somebody with an 8 stat and no proficiency is 25%. The chance of failure for the same person on a DC 5 check is also 25%. Why is DC 15 okay to call for, but not DC 5?

Where did I say I was okay calling for DC 15 checks for someone with negative talent and no proficiency? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I'm not in favor of 15 being the default, not one page ago.

[Unoriginal]

Where did I say I was okay calling for DC 15 checks for someone with negative talent and no proficiency? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I'm not in favor of 15 being the default, not one page ago.

I'm confused. So if a PC with 8 in the relevant stat and no proficiency attempts something that is DC 15, you just go "it wouldn't be okay to call for a check" and just declare they fail?

[Sorinth]

Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?

I would argue that the rolls do matter even at DC 5. Would you not make a DC 10 roll for a PC who has a +4 to the check for the same reason? Would you never call for a DC 15 roll if a PC had a +9?

It seems like strange decision-making to say DC 5 is something that should never be the DC for a roll "that matters," but DC 15 is totally okay for it.

Keep in mind you are ignoring the advice given in the books which state that it's not really worth rolling against DC 5 checks except in unusual circumstances.

[Psyren]

I'm confused. So if a PC with 8 in the relevant stat and no proficiency attempts something that is DC 15, you just go "it wouldn't be okay to call for a check" and just declare they fail?

Spoilering this tangent because we're drifting back to well-worn territory instead of anything to do with the cleric playtest.

Spoiler: Roll calling approach tangent

Show

Probably, it depends on the check.

Generally speaking, if I'm calling for a check that is DC 15 or higher, the expectation would be that not everyone in the party is effectively an untalented commoner with an 8 in the relevant ability score and no proficiency; rather, those checks are likely designed for the character(s) with relevant talent/training to shine, especially at low levels.

For example, if I was for some reason running a party of 4 barbarians with 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency, I probably wouldn't have the entire adventure hinge on them passing even a Moderate check to decipher some arcane runes. Or if it did, I wouldn't waste time with rolls, I'd let them know that they probably need to go get help, or find another way to progress the plot instead.

[Segev]

Spoilering this tangent because we're drifting back to well-worn territory instead of anything to do with the cleric playtest.

Spoiler: Roll calling approach tangent

Show

Probably, it depends on the check.

Generally speaking, if I'm calling for a check that is DC 15 or higher, the expectation would be that not everyone in the party is effectively an untalented commoner with an 8 in the relevant ability score and no proficiency; rather, those checks are likely designed for the character(s) with relevant talent/training to shine, especially at low levels.

For example, if I was for some reason running a party of 4 barbarians with 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency, I probably wouldn't have the entire adventure hinge on them passing even a Moderate check to decipher some arcane runes. Or if it did, I wouldn't waste time with rolls, I'd let them know that they probably need to go get help, or find another way to progress the plot instead.

Spoiler

Show

I didn't say "everyone in the party." I said that some such characters exist. Is the only time that a roll is "meaningful" enough to make if "the entire adventure hinge on them passing" it? Because otherwise, I don't see what relevance that has to the discussion being had.

But you're right, this is drifting off topic, so I'll stop responding to it here.

Back on topic, guidance is not considered in the design of 5.0's skill DCs. It is not assumed that everyone will have it. 5.1 guidance as presented in this UA is... well, it's not as bad as the one in the prior UA. At least it isn't limited in (uses/day)/target. And I definitely get how some will find the fact that it's a reaction that doesn't use concentration is nice. But I fear it will make it even more likely that it's just treated as "always on" if you happen to have it, and it also reduces its utility as a party buff because now you have to be right there with the user of it when they do the thing, rather than being able to bless somebody with it before they go off to try something on their own. This is especially relevant to rogues, who are the most likely to be solo when they have a clutch roll they need to make.

Come to think of it, while I don't find 5.0 resistance worth taking because the times you know in advance a save might be upcoming are so rare, it probably was designed with sending the rogue out to disarm traps in mind.

[Psyren]

Back on topic, guidance is not considered in the design of 5.0's skill DCs. It is not assumed that everyone will have it.

I agree with the latter but I'm not sure what basis you have for the former, did the designers say that anywhere? And even if the former was true for 5e, I'm not seeing what that has to do with 1DnD; given that they're redesigning both Guidance itself and the suggested DC system, they're clearly thinking about them both now.

5.1 guidance as presented in this UA is... well, it's not as bad as the one in the prior UA. At least it isn't limited in (uses/day)/target. And I definitely get how some will find the fact that it's a reaction that doesn't use concentration is nice. But I fear it will make it even more likely that it's just treated as "always on" if you happen to have it, and it also reduces its utility as a party buff because now you have to be right there with the user of it when they do the thing, rather than being able to bless somebody with it before they go off to try something on their own. This is especially relevant to rogues, who are the most likely to be solo when they have a clutch roll they need to make.

There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it won't be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.

[Segev]

There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it won't be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.

Sorry I was unclear. Unspoken context change, there. "Always on" was more me thinking in terms of "you don't have to drop concentration for it, nor even have any forethought into whether you cast it or not." It'll apply to skill checks that there's no reason to have expected them to come up, because it's reflexive, now. It will apply even when the druid who usually casts it is maintaining pass without trace (making an enormous assumption that that won't be nerfed into the ground, of course; I never saw the spell used outside of 5e, and it only gets used now because of its enormous boost to stealth, in my experience). It may apply mid-combat to the rogue trying to hide while the cleric is maintaining spirit guardians. That's what I meant by "always on," though I totally understand why you took a broader interpretation of the phrase to mean "even when nobody is anywhere near the caster."

[ZRN]

There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it won't be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.

The rogue "opportunity cost" question reminds me of SCAGtrips - you could argue that the added rogue damage from Booming Blade is fine because it's balanced by the opportunity cost of spending a feat (or picking a race or subclass) to get those cantrips, but there's a separate issue that it's annoying that you're locked into that specific gish flavor if you want to optimize your damage.

Same issue here - wanting to be The Best at skills (which is supposed to be your class forte) means you have to grab essentially a multiclass feat to learn some priest spells? Feels weird. And completely avoidable.

[Melil12]

Next Subclass for rogue should be a Divine gish that gives them guidance :-)

[Psyren]

Sorry I was unclear. Unspoken context change, there. "Always on" was more me thinking in terms of "you don't have to drop concentration for it, nor even have any forethought into whether you cast it or not." It'll apply to skill checks that there's no reason to have expected them to come up, because it's reflexive, now. It will apply even when the druid who usually casts it is maintaining pass without trace (making an enormous assumption that that won't be nerfed into the ground, of course; I never saw the spell used outside of 5e, and it only gets used now because of its enormous boost to stealth, in my experience). It may apply mid-combat to the rogue trying to hide while the cleric is maintaining spirit guardians. That's what I meant by "always on," though I totally understand why you took a broader interpretation of the phrase to mean "even when nobody is anywhere near the caster."

It's definitely stronger now that it doesn't compete with your concentration - but again, I have no doubt that a lot of groups were forgetting that drawback in practice anyway, so getting rid of it makes sense.

The rogue "opportunity cost" question reminds me of SCAGtrips - you could argue that the added rogue damage from Booming Blade is fine because it's balanced by the opportunity cost of spending a feat (or picking a race or subclass) to get those cantrips, but there's a separate issue that it's annoying that you're locked into that specific gish flavor if you want to optimize your damage.

Same issue here - wanting to be The Best at skills (which is supposed to be your class forte) means you have to grab essentially a multiclass feat to learn some priest spells? Feels weird. And completely avoidable.

Well sure - a Rogue who starts with Magic Initiate is going to have an edge that a rogue without that doesn't... but then so is a Rogue with Lucky, or a Rogue with Skilled, or a Rogue with Alert, or a Rogue with Squire of Solamnia etc. And I have no doubt we'll get even more cool options even before 1DnD launches.

[sambojin]

Ardling rogues, everywhere.....
Cat girls, dog boys, everywhere. Guidance'ing everything, controlling everything....
Arrrrggghhh!!!!!

Although, until we get an AT subclass, an Ardling or High Elf or Cloud Goliath Rogue with Magical Initiate does sub-in pretty well at lower levels for now. I actually hope they make them into half casters, with 1/3rd casters being a thing of the past.

[ZRN]

Well sure - a Rogue who starts with Magic Initiate is going to have an edge that a rogue without that doesn't... but then so is a Rogue with Lucky, or a Rogue with Skilled, or a Rogue with Alert, or a Rogue with Squire of Solamnia etc. And I have no doubt we'll get even more cool options even before 1DnD launches.

In 5e, a level 17+ rogue with access to Booming Blade does between 3d8 and 7d8 extra damage every round; up that to 14d8 if he has Warcaster and gets an opportunity attack. That's a huge damage boost! You can argue that rogues aren't overpowered dealing that much extra damage, but my point is that there is no NON-magical way for a rogue to get near that much extra consistent damage out of a single feat, so if you want extra consistent damage you're "stuck" casting spells to get it. Same with guidance/resistance - if you want to juice your skills and saving throws you have to take some divine flavor along with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also seriously nerf or just remove guidance. Guidance gives as much as proficiency in every skill in T1, it also turns all of your proficiencies into expertises. It's basically a +2.5 on all skills. How is that not OP?

I am so tired of the hate on guidance. It doesn't pose problems at our tables, and never has. Half the time players forget to use it, and sometimes when the it is used it is beneficial and everyone gets a grin out of it. I had one Dm (MaxWilson) ask me to ensure that I always spoke a small blessing when I offered guidance to a fellow player ) and I did. The deity I was aligned with had a relationship with stars and the sky, so my little blessing was something along the lines of "May the stars guide you in your endeavour" (I'll go and find it, I it's somewhere in a discord chat).
Guidance is fine.

Resistance only costs your reaction. It's functionally a +1d4 on all your saves

Or one of your allies if they are within range.
Suggest that you rid of your dismissive "only" in that first sentence.
Eating a reaction is still a resource eaten.
Also: opportunity cost of another cantrip not selected.

Also no more precasting guidance, then walking up to someone and making a deception check.

Which is a bummer since that was the kind of thing that enabled / aided / folded in role play.

If you have to break the campaign/worldbuilding give commoners cantrips just to keep the players from breaking the game with a cantrip then perhaps the cantrip should not exist. Just a thought.

But you don't have to break the game ... hyperbole is not a useful approach here.

Guidance should be pre-cast, as in 5.0 D&D, because it lets you use it in these situations.

Tend to agree.

I agree with this. And it’s emblematic of the whole new approach. Boring but powerful. Generic “pick this for big numbers” without interesting interplay or limits.

It sure is smelling that way.

Running joke at my table is 'lets just say 13', which works equally well for setting DCs and rolls that fall off the table

works fine.

Keep in mind you are ignoring the advice given in the books which state that it's not really worth rolling against DC 5 checks except in unusual circumstances.

Who reads?

[Gignere]

I am so tired of the hate on guidance. It doesn't pose problems at our tables, and never has. Half the time players forget to use it, and sometimes when the it is used it is beneficial and everyone gets a grin out of it. I had one Dm (MaxWilson) ask me to ensure that I always spoke a small blessing when I offered guidance to a fellow player ) and I did. The deity I was aligned with had a relationship with stars and the sky, so my little blessing was something along the lines of "May the stars guide you in your endeavour" (I'll go and find it, I it's somewhere in a discord chat).
Guidance is fine.
Or one of your allies if they are within range.
Suggest that you rid of your dismissive "only" in that first sentence.
Eating a reaction is still a resource eaten.
Also: opportunity cost of another cantrip not selected.
Which is a bummer since that was the kind of thing that enabled / aided / folded in role play.
But you don't have to break the game ... hyperbole is not a useful approach here.
Tend to agree.
It sure is smelling that way.
works fine.
Who reads?

Guidance is not fine if D&D insists that expertise is a powerful feature that a group of classes can be designed around it. Either expertise needs to be buffed or guidance will need some tuning down.

Because a cantrip that is basically proficiency/expertise on every skill until nearly the end of t2 means expert groups major defining feature is crapola.

[Psyren]

Guidance is not fine if D&D insists that expertise is a powerful feature that a group of classes can be designed around it. Either expertise needs to be buffed or guidance will need some tuning down.

Because a cantrip that is basically proficiency/expertise on every skill until nearly the end of t2 means expert groups major defining feature is crapola.

It's not "every skill." Stopping to loudly chant while you're trying to hide, or in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.

[Kane0]

It's not "every skill." Stopping to loudly chant while you're trying to hide, or in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.

He has a point though. Expertise is a 'defining feature' of the expert classes, but Guidance does like 75% or more of the same job and is pretty much an afterthought in the caster's repertoire.

[Pex]

Yes, and? If you have negative talent and no training, some incidence of failure should be expected. How often are you the one chosen by your group to roll for something where you have 8 stat and no proficiency, yet its so easy that not having those deficiencies would almost guarantee success?

As often as the DM says so. When I DM the player who came up with the idea to warrant a check makes the roll. Everyone gets to participate in anything, not only the player with an 18 and proficient in that Thing. They have a harder chance of succeeding as expected for the 8 and not proficient, but they get the chance.

[Marcloure]

[Casting guidance] in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.

Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).

[Gignere]

Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).

Yes the real life analog is when you see a priest speaking and he crosses himself and speaks a prayer in the middle of a conversation. I’m an atheist and doesn’t even find that odd nor offended by it.

[Atranen]

Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).

I've always thought it would be extremely frowned upon. It's...magic that's being used to influence and control other people. This is a world where magic is real, it's known, and it has an impact. It's not innocuous; it's clearly manipulative.

[Psyren]

As often as the DM says so. When I DM the player who came up with the idea to warrant a check makes the roll. Everyone gets to participate in anything, not only the player with an 18 and proficient in that Thing. They have a harder chance of succeeding as expected for the 8 and not proficient, but they get the chance.

And if you have a -1 total modifier, +1d4 is hardly going to make you a savant even in low tiers.

He has a point though. Expertise is a 'defining feature' of the expert classes, but Guidance does like 75% or more of the same job and is pretty much an afterthought in the caster's repertoire.

Experts generally want to be good at sneaking and/or influence, the two situations where reaction guidance is likely to be least useful.

Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).

Most people won't know what you're casting. And even if they do, that's all the more reason to be suspicious, because they can't know if you're trying to make yourself better at persuading them or deceiving them.

[animorte]

I've always thought it would be extremely frowned upon. It's...magic that's being used to influence and control other people. This is a world where magic is real, it's known, and it has an impact. It's not innocuous; it's clearly manipulative.

In a world where magic is extremely common, I would hardly think everything would be extremely frowned upon and perceived as influence and control. In a world where magic is real and known, I’m sure NPCs likely have witnessed some basic magic that is neither aggressive nor manipulative.

Most people won't know what you're casting. And even if they do, that's all the more reason to be suspicious, because they can't know if you're trying to make yourself better at persuading them or deceiving them.

Or making somebody smell bad, or improve the taste of your food, or lighting up an object.

---

There are just so many encounters that I’ve used so many different spells in different ways that I find it hard to believe NPCs are overwhelmingly suspicious any time a spell might be cast near them, unless they are familiar enough with spells (more particularly ones used against them) to be as such.

The friends cantrip specifically states that the target of the spell knows and becomes hostile… Why specifically mention there if the NPC always knows and always becomes hostile no matter what the spell is?

[Atranen]

In a world where magic is extremely common, I would hardly think everything would be extremely frowned upon and perceived as influence and control. In a world where magic is real and known, I’m sure NPCs likely have witnessed some basic magic that is neither aggressive nor manipulative.

I think the opposite. There's no way to really tell, as magic does not exist. But we might analogize with mind affecting substances. If I have a meeting and serve alcohol to make my counterpart more amenable, it's no problem. But anything beyond that would be a major problem, and possibly criminal. Guidance could fall into either category.

There are just so many encounters that I’ve used so many different spells in different ways that I find it hard to believe NPCs are overwhelmingly suspicious any time a spell might be cast near them, unless they are familiar enough with spells (more particularly ones used against them) to be as such.

If they ask me what the spell does, and I say 'it helps me persuade you I'm right', I would expect them to be upset.

The friends cantrip specifically states that the target of the spell knows and becomes hostile… Why specifically mention there if the NPC always knows and always becomes hostile no matter what the spell is?

I think 5e majorly lacks detail on the topic of using spells in social scenarios.

[Psyren]

Or making somebody smell bad, or improve the taste of your food, or lighting up an object.

And you just have to do those things mid-conversation? That's not exactly going to endear you to the person you're trying to convince of something.