# One D&D is one D&D too much (-)



## DND_Reborn

Having time to read the new UA for 1DD material, here is my in-depth critique. Notice, this is a (-) thread, so feel free to disagree all you want. 

//// BEGIN RANT ////

Determine Your Origin
- Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?

- Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.

- Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.

- Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes _sense_ to have it...).

- Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them _ANY_ two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:

Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. _shrugs_

- Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here... Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.

- Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...

- Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!

- Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.

- TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least _you can be small or medium_ like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.

BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)

- Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just _can't_ be stronger than my Halfling!!!) so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...). When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just _can't_ be smarter than my Sage!"

- Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?

- Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.


FEATS
Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...

Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.

- Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).

- Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wands and heal-bot PCs!

- Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.

- Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make _THIS ONE_ repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...

- Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on _other creatures_ turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. _yeah_... _yawns_

- Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.

- Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.

D20 Test? (Failed!)
Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.

Critical Hits
No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...

Grappled
Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.

Inspiration
So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is now "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...

SPELL LISTS
Took you long enough....

//// END RANT ////

I finally found the words, and they weren't enough.


----------



## dave2008

DND_Reborn said:


> //// END RANT ////



Yep, that sounded like a rant.  I hoped that helped you. Now, make sure to add your comments to the survey on 9/1.


----------



## DND_Reborn

dave2008 said:


> Yep, that sounded like a rant.  I hoped that helped you. Now, make sure to add your comments to the survey on 9/1.



Yeah, it was. If this is the level of stuff to expect in a couple years, it will be pretty bad stuff. It just frustrates me because I feel like over and over again people keep bringing up the same things and very little of it gets addressed by WotC.

I doubt I'll bother, TBH. I'm a dying breed of D&D player and I know it. Eventually, I'll say the wrong thing or go too far and get banned from here even (I've already had 2 warnings  ).

The only WotC product I like and found "better" was d20 Star Wars. I loved playing the WEG d6 SW, but for some reason the d20 system and the design for d20 Star Wars seemed superior to me and just "worked" for the game. When we finish our current D&D game on Saturdays, we're going to d20 SW for a while--as some players want to try it.

I explained to one of the new players in the Monday night group about Vitality being spent for Force powers and he loved the concept, asked why spells don't use a similar system in D&D? I told him, honestly, I wish they had.

When I looked into 5E for the first time, I was SO hoping they would incorporate the Vitality/Wounds system, but (surprise, surprise) it wasn't there...

Anyway, I figure this can be a thread for anyone else who feels like venting.


----------



## Lanefan

If feats are coming baked in with backgrounds now, I guess the idea of feats being optional has gone out the window?

That said, the idea of one's background carrying some sort of mechanical ability with it isn't all bad; but I'd still rather see some of that tied to one's species as well e.g. all Dwarves have a chance of sensing sliding or shifting stonework.


----------



## Haplo781

dave2008 said:


> Yep, that sounded like a rant.  I hoped that helped you. Now, make sure to add your comments to the survey on 9/1.



Or you know, don't. I'm not a cop.


----------



## Jer

Lanefan said:


> If feats are coming baked in with backgrounds now, I guess the idea of feats being optional has gone out the window?



Only if they don't get a lot of push-back on the surveys.  If people like it or are indifferent to it they'll run with it and feats aren't optional anymore.  If they get a lot of negativity from it, then I suspect they drop that idea.  (I doubt they'll get much pushback on it but who knows?)


----------



## Lanefan

Next question: will these surveys be open to people who aren't part of the playtest?


----------



## Haplo781

Lanefan said:


> Next question: will these surveys be open to people who aren't part of the playtest?



Why would they be?


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> Next question: will these surveys be open to people who aren't part of the playtest?



I'm not sure how they would be able to tell if you've playtested or not.

If you mean "Can you fill out the survey without setting up a free D&D Beyond account to download the playtest document", that I don't know.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Lanefan said:


> Next question: will these surveys be open to people who aren't part of the playtest?



Since "being part of the playtest" just requires having a D&D Beyond account, "no", but only technically?


----------



## dave2008

DND_Reborn said:


> Yeah, it was. If this is the level of stuff to expect in a couple years, it will be pretty bad stuff. It just frustrates me because I feel like over and over again people keep bringing up the same things and very little of it gets addressed by WotC.



I'm fine with the new stuff. It is still 5e and that is what we want. We have already made the changes we want to 5e, so if it doesn't change much it works for us.


DND_Reborn said:


> I explained to one of the new players in the Monday night group about Vitality being spent for Force powers and he loved the concept, asked why spells don't use a similar system in D&D? I told him, honestly, I wish they had.



We have version of that (wound/vitality) in our 5e game, but it works for spells and martial abilities.


----------



## Lanefan

Haplo781 said:


> Why would they be?



Because otherwise it'll be nothing but an echo chamber - people in the playtest are likely there because they already like the directions 1D&D is going, meaning the odds are there'll only ever be suggestions for minor tweaks here and there rather than any real directional pushback or serious calls for an outright course change.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Lanefan said:


> Because otherwise it'll be nothing but an echo chamber - people in the playtest are likely there because they already like the directions 1D&D is going, meaning the odds are there'll only ever be suggestions for minor tweaks here and there rather than any real directional pushback or serious calls for an outright course change.



To have an informed opinion, one would need to download and at least read the playtest material. Then you can determine if you like the direction or not. I don't see how that creates an echo chamber.

I'd hope the survey isn't open to people who skipped that step, and are only filling it out because they didn't like something "they read in a forum post."


----------



## Retreater

TBH, I won't have time to playtest it in the 2 weeks before the survey. At best I can get in one game. So all I can offer is theory and gut reactions. 
Hopefully they give more time for a thorough playtest and feedback from the community.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Because otherwise it'll be nothing but an echo chamber - people in the playtest are likely there because they already like the directions 1D&D is going, meaning the odds are there'll only ever be suggestions for minor tweaks here and there rather than any real directional pushback or serious calls for an outright course change.



The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.



Astutely put - well done!


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Astutely put - well done!








Yes...


----------



## Gadget

Well, I don't care for the new "furries" celestial race.   Why couldn't they just do to the Asimar what they did to the Tiefling?  Is the furry market really that influential?  But, I've never been a fan of the race of the month club that seems to have become more prevalent in recent years.  

I'm not sure how the seemingly myriad ways to get inspiration will play out.  I get that they want players to use it rather than hoard it, so they are want to increase ways to get it, but there were many groups who were not really using it at all.  This sounds like a power boost, and devalues precious spells and abilities that give out advantage.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Yeah, I'm a little iffy on that part as well. I've almost always gone for ASIs instead of feats. That being said, a lot of the backgrounds come with abilities that are like half-a-feat, that a lot of PCs just forget about after a few sessions. No one's (okay, most people aren't) going to forget about having Alert, Skilled, or Tavern Brawler.



Lanefan said:


> If feats are coming baked in with backgrounds now, I guess the idea of feats being optional has gone out the window?
> 
> That said, the idea of one's background carrying some sort of mechanical ability with it isn't all bad; but I'd still rather see some of that tied to one's species as well e.g. all Dwarves have a chance of sensing sliding or shifting stonework.


----------



## dave2008

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Yeah, I'm a little iffy on that part as well. I've almost always gone for ASIs instead of feats. That being said, a lot of the backgrounds come with abilities that are like half-a-feat, that a lot of PCs just forget about after a few sessions. No one's (okay, most people aren't) going to forget about having Alert, Skilled, or Tavern Brawler.



My question is are feats replacing ASIs or are Feats default and ASIs optional? Or will ASIs be a "Feat" that you can take at higher levels.


----------



## deganawida

Sir Brennen said:


> I'd hope the survey isn't open to people who skipped that step, and are only filling it out because they didn't like something "they read in a forum post."




I’m not sure that is actually a good measurement of one’s knowledge of a subject. One can independently research anything without directly participating in it and form an informed opinion. Sources do matter, but actually participating in something is not necessary to having an informed opinion of it.


----------



## Sir Brennen

deganawida said:


> I’m not sure that is actually a good measurement of one’s knowledge of a subject. One can independently research anything without directly participating in it and form an informed opinion. Sources do matter, but actually participating in something is not necessary to having an informed opinion of it.



Depends on what you mean by "participating". You think people who haven't done the bare minimum and read the playtest document should reply to a survey asking specific questions about that document? Relying on secondary sources can give rise to opinions formed from a game of Telephone. And only relying on secondary sources would actually increase the odds of opinions formed in an "echo chamber"


----------



## Charlaquin

Lanefan said:


> If feats are coming baked in with backgrounds now, I guess the idea of feats being optional has gone out the window?



Yes. That said, I will be very surprised if (after 1st level) you don’t still have the option to improve an ability score instead of taking a Feat (more specifically, I expect that +2 to one ability score or +1 to two ability scores will be a feat you can take multiple times).


----------



## Charlaquin

Gadget said:


> Well, I don't care for the new "furries" celestial race.   Why couldn't they just do to the Asimar what they did to the Tiefling?  Is the furry market really that influential?



Yes, it absolutely is. Though, as a fan of anthropomorphic animals myself, I don’t like Ardlings either. The upper planes connection feels wildly out of place to me, and while the spectral wings will appeal to a certain type of furry very strongly, it’s definitely not my kind of thing. I wish they’d have gone with something more like Hengeyokai if they wanted a general furry race in the PHB, and/or Aasimar if they wanted an upper planes counterpart to Tieflings in the PHB.


----------



## deganawida

Sir Brennen said:


> Depends on what you mean by "participating". You think people who haven't done the bare minimum and read the playtest document should participate in the survey asking questions about that document? Relying on secondary sources can give rise to opinions formed from a game of Telephone. And only relying on secondary sources would actually increase the odds of opinions formed in an "echo chamber"



By participating I mean actually playing the playtest rules. If I have other sources, such as official statements from the developers on rules and aims, reviews by friends, reviews from trusted reviewers, and so forth, I can make an informed opinion as to whether or not it is for me. 

It’s similar to whether or not I want to do anything else, really. Research extensively, get opinions from trusted people, compare with everything else that I could be doing, weigh options, make a judgment call.

I am by no means suggesting that a forum post is enough to form an informed opinion about this. However, I am arguing that one does not have to actually play the playtest to have an informed opinion. There are other means of obtaining quality information from which a reasonable judgment or opinion can be formed.

If I had to attempt everything that I have an opinion on, good or ill, it would take several lifetimes (with some way to come back from death, as some of those things are fatal or close enough for government work), a ton of money, and more free time than I have with a career and a family.


----------



## Medic

Gadget said:


> Is the furry market really that influential?



Boy oh boy, do I have news for you.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, it absolutely is. Though, as a fan of anthropomorphic animals myself, I don’t like Ardlings either. The upper planes connection feels wildly out of place to me, and while the spectral wings will appeal to a certain type of furry very strongly, it’s definitely not my kind of thing. I wish they’d have gone with something more like Hengeyokai if they wanted a general furry race in the PHB, and/or Aasimar if they wanted an upper planes counterpart to Tieflings in the PHB.



I think it's also a matter of placement for me. I would not mind seeing the Ardlings in the Planescape book. In the core PHB, however, it strikes me as an odd choice for trying to consolidate and reorganize popular choices from the past 8 years for an evergreen edition.


----------



## ThrorII

1D&D, now called "Furries & Fairies".


----------



## Charlaquin

Aldarc said:


> I think it's also a matter of placement for me. I would not mind seeing the Ardlings in the Planescape book. In the core PHB, however, it strikes me as an odd choice for trying to consolidate and reorganize popular choices from the past 8 years for an evergreen edition.



Very good point.


----------



## Charlaquin

ThrorII said:


> 1D&D, now called "Furries & Fairies".



Nothing wrong with that. Sounds like a good time, in fact.


----------



## MockingBird

The baked in feats...I dunno. We never used feats (not that I didn't allow them, my players just never used them). I'm still in the middle on this. I was expecting more compatability but the more I read I notice they say "your adventures and source books will still be usable". They never explicitly say "Rule books". I'm okay with this just as long as I can use the adventures and setting books I have. I don't mind upgrading to new core books as long as the play style remains the same. Inspiration, so with the starter set we used it but the players just forgot they had it so we stopped. I'm curious to see if picks up. Don't know that I like monsters loosing the ability to crit. It brings tension to the combats. I can see the reasoning though and it might play better than I'm thinking. I know this is play test material and will change. I just hope the new D&D doesn't regress. I also hope we get TotM info that one guy asked for. I mean they told him he would be pleased then they unveil a VTT with minis and such. I have nothing against minis or VTTs by the way just not my favorite style.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

DND_Reborn said:


> Determine Your Origin
> - Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?



Then give that advice in the survey. I like the core concept, but also would like if they gave an optional rule for combining the mechanics of two different races. I'm giving that feedback. If you want that, you should too. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.



Flavor. And, nothing appears to have changed from earlier this edition. And they didn't change the ranges of Small, they just gave different ranges for different races. So Small Humans cover a larger range of the Small size than Ardlings. Like how it worked in the 2014 PHB for Halflings and Gnomes.


DND_Reborn said:


> - Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.



Then give that in the playtest. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes _sense_ to have it...).



Not every race can be every size. What's with the snark?


DND_Reborn said:


> - Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them _ANY_ two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:
> 
> Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
> DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
> Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
> DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. _shrugs_



Again, no, every race has different sizes they can be. What's your problem with this? And we haven't seen the changes to tool proficiencies yet, so wait to complain about that until we see it. 

Stonecunning being limited? I don't know. Balance maybe. Or a blessing from Moradin like Forge Wise. However, I would just make it always on. If you want that too, leave that advice in the survey.


DND_Reborn said:


> - Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here...



Trend? Is it that races have different height ranges? Because that's the trend.


DND_Reborn said:


> Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.



They do make limits. You can't use your Physical Ability Scores to cast the spells. They're just opening it up a bit so a) you don't have to keep track of multiple different spell save DCs from your race and class if you're a Wizard or other spellcasting class.


DND_Reborn said:


> - Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...
> 
> - Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!



Do you like races being limited to different sizes, or do you just want to complain without saying what you want?


DND_Reborn said:


> - Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.



Good! Giving full race stats for Half-Elves and Half-Orcs always brings up questions of "What about Half-Gnomes, or Half-Halflings, or Half-Tabaxi" and whatnot. It's a slippery slope. This is a win for game designers. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least _you can be small or medium_ like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.



They're opening up Tieflings to be of non-human heritages, like they did for Genasi, Aasimar, and other races in Monsters of the Multiverse. That includes small races, which explains why they can be Medium or Small. To me, that's a win. 

If you want one of them to be resistant to Cold damage instead of Poison or Necrotic, say that in the survey. That's a fine recommendation. 


DND_Reborn said:


> BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)
> 
> - Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just _can't_ be stronger than my Halfling!!!)



Except for Small Giant and everything else built into the race that makes them stronger/tougher than halflings. 


DND_Reborn said:


> so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...).
> 
> When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just _can't_ be smarter than my Sage!"



They are. It's actually a really common mistake online from the discussions that I've been in for people to miss the whole "you are recommended to customize the backgrounds how you want" part of the UA. Apparently, people online take things out of context and don't actually fully read the thing they're posting about. Who knew?

And they're tying them to backgrounds to give some justification of why they're even in the game at this point. Soldiers will be stronger/healthier than the average person, so the sample Soldier background they give grants them a bonus to STR and CON. They're quietly saying "Hey, you should build your custom backgrounds around where it would make sense for the Background ASIs to go". That's why they're still a thing. They're testing to see if it works for the broader community. 

There might be some people that didn't read the rule fully and complain about specific ASIs, feats, and languages being "locked" into certain backgrounds, but WotC shouldn't design the game around the dumbest interpretation of a rule that's explicitly clear in how it works. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?



To make Backgrounds more important and give an easy excuse for including one of the most common homebrew rules people take. And to make stuff like Strixhaven Initiate and the Knights of Solamnia feats possible.


DND_Reborn said:


> - Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.



Yep. 


DND_Reborn said:


> FEATS
> Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...



Because it clearly looks like they're trying to balance them out a bit. And separating them by levels is a part of that. 


DND_Reborn said:


> Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.



And it looks like they're planning on making it easier to add more. So what are you complaining about?


DND_Reborn said:


> - Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).



I'm pretty sure that's their goal with the whole "separating feats by level" thing they're testing with this document. 1st level feats will be useful, but not as good as later level feats (which, presumably, will be the feats like Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter). And, compared to the rest of 1st level feats in this document . . . this is still a worthwhile feat to take, and it did get a utility buff. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wants and heal-bot PCs!



Nerf? Can you please explain how? Because, to me, it looks like it both got nerfed and buffed. And are you mad that they're giving options for nonmagical healing . . . because there aren't other options? Dude, don't complain about a good thing. That will just make them less likely to give you more of that good thing. If you want more sources of nonmagical healing ask for that in the survey document. Scolding them for it not being present before probably won't achieve . . . whatever you're aiming to achieve with this. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.



Actually, no. Because, while you do get more uses, now it's just advantage/disadvantage. The wording is slightly off, so it doesn't really do what it intends to do, but this is definitely a nerf from the PHB version of this feat. If you want it to be nerfed even more, put that in the survey.


DND_Reborn said:


> - Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make _THIS ONE_ repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...



They don't want people to get every cantrip in the game and the equivalent of 8 1st level spell slots, I guess. If you want it repeatable, leave that in the survey. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on _other creatures_ turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. _yeah_... _yawns_



Umm . . . to me, it looks like this feat got buffed and the minor nerf of not working on OAs. It no longer specified "melee weapon attack" and just works on any weapon. 

The feat still isn't good (well, it might be for level 1 if it's the only damaging feat option), but it's definitely not worse than before, IMO. It's opened up to more weapon options and you can get it before you'd get access to Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Looks like a slight improvement upon garbage to . . . slightly shiny garbage. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.



If you want them to be repeatable, put that in the survey. I think the main reason Musician couldn't be repeated is because Inspiring Song exists, and Crafter probably isn't repeatable to not get a 100% discount on your shopping prices/crafting times. 


DND_Reborn said:


> - Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.



My guess is that they wanted to make it more specific to Taverns . . . for some reason. Yeah, this one is weird. I got nothing.


DND_Reborn said:


> D20 Test? (Failed!)
> Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.



Yep. So, good change? No need for the salt. 


DND_Reborn said:


> Critical Hits
> No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...



Critical unarmed strikes didn't do extra damage before . . . so I don't know if you were playing correctly. 


DND_Reborn said:


> Grappled
> Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.



??? That's how it worked in base 5e. Now, your grapple just automatically works *if you hit them* and they have to try to break out later (presumably through using an Action to escape, but it's not clear yet). If this does what I think it does, this is a huge improvement of how Grappling worked in 5e and might actually encourage players to use it (which was very uncommon before). 


DND_Reborn said:


> Inspiration
> So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is not "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...



5e was designed under the assumption that Inspiration was going to be more common than it ended up being in practice. So, it's not powercreep from the intended power level, because it's actually making the mechanic built into the system to remind players and DMs that it exists and is useful. 


DND_Reborn said:


> SPELL LISTS
> Took you long enough....



So, you like the change. No need to be negative if you like the darn thing.


DND_Reborn said:


> //// END RANT ////



If you needed to get that out of your system, I hope it helped. However, I think you were being a bit uncharitable to the document and the reasons behind a lot of the changes. Maybe look over things a bit more with new eyes (you got a few things wrong, and definitely have a grudge) if you can.


----------



## Haplo781

deganawida said:


> I’m not sure that is actually a good measurement of one’s knowledge of a subject. One can independently research anything without directly participating in it and form an informed opinion. Sources do matter, but actually participating in something is not necessary to having an informed opinion of it.



If only people with informed opinions weighed in, 4e would have lasted a lot longer.


----------



## DND_Reborn

AcererakTriple6 said:


> What's with the snark?



It's called a rant for a reason. A "rant" isn't about explaining things necessarily.

As I said in the OP, feel free to disagree, but I'm not "wrong", you just disagree. 

Also, nothing I said has anything to do with how _I play_ D&D currently, just FYI.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

DND_Reborn said:


> It's called a rant for a reason. A "rant" isn't about explaining things necessarily.



Yeah. But a lot of it was nonsensical. You're getting mad at something unrelated to the thing that's actually pissing you off. That just seems . . . _unhealthy_.


DND_Reborn said:


> As I said in the OP, feel free to disagree, but I'm not "wrong", you just disagree.



The parts where you misread the text were wrong. I do disagree on some of the stuff that is subjective . . . but you were absolutely wrong about Lucky and some of the other changes.


DND_Reborn said:


> Also, nothing I said has anything to do with how _I play_ D&D currently, just FYI.



Did I say anything about that? I specified that some of the "changes" you were commenting on were actually just a part of the game since the beginning.


----------



## DND_Reborn

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. But a lot of it was nonsensical. You're getting mad at something unrelated to the thing that's actually pissing you off. That just seems . . . _unhealthy_.
> 
> The parts where you misread the text were wrong. I do disagree on some of the stuff that is subjective . . . but you were absolutely wrong about Lucky and some of the other changes.
> 
> Did I say anything about that? I specified that some of the "changes" you were commenting on were actually just a part of the game since the beginning.



Look, I'm not engaging with you on this. Please drop it.


----------



## Staffan

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Nerf? Can you please explain how?



5e Healer: heals a creature for d6+4+its level hp, once per target's short/long rest. Can also be used to stabilize a person and bring them to 1 hp (meaning they're awake and can do stuff) instead of 0.

D1D Healer: requires target to spend a Hit Die, and the target regains that Hit Die (reroll once on a 1) + your proficiency bonus.

The 5e feat heals for more (assuming you're not using it on a barbarian who is significantly lower level than you), scales better (but still not well), and doesn't cost a Hit Die to use.

I could also bring up my rant here about how much I dislike 5e's Hit Dice and how they're a very, very bad substitute for 4e's healing surges.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Staffan said:


> 5e Healer: heals a creature for d6+4+its level hp, once per target's short/long rest. Can also be used to stabilize a person and bring them to 1 hp (meaning they're awake and can do stuff) instead of 0.
> 
> D1D Healer: requires target to spend a Hit Die, and the target regains that Hit Die (reroll once on a 1) + your proficiency bonus.
> 
> The 5e feat heals for more (assuming you're not using it on a barbarian who is significantly lower level than you), scales better (but still not well), and doesn't cost a Hit Die to use.
> 
> I could also bring up my rant here about how much I dislike 5e's Hit Dice and how they're a very, very bad substitute for 4e's healing surges.



Yeah, that is a nerf. I'll be asking for that to get a buff in the document. Might also ask for "Healing Kits" to be significantly changed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

ThrorII said:


> 1D&D, now called "Furries & Fairies".



*Mod Note:*

Hopefully, you mean that in the least offensive way possible, yes?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Because otherwise it'll be nothing but an echo chamber - people in the playtest are likely there because they already like the directions 1D&D is going, meaning the odds are there'll only ever be suggestions for minor tweaks here and there rather than any real directional pushback or serious calls for an outright course change.



They never cared about that in the D&D Next playtest, why would they start now? "Echo chamber" is precisely what killed the original (much much better) Sorcerer and Warlock concepts, among other things during the public playtest. Why is an echo chamber a problem now when it wasn't back then?


----------



## Mecheon

Gadget said:


> Well, I don't care for the new "furries" celestial race. Why couldn't they just do to the Asimar what they did to the Tiefling? Is the furry market really that influential? But, I've never been a fan of the race of the month club that seems to have become more prevalent in recent years.



I can understand why they want back to the drawing board, given 'A compelling opposite to the tiefling' has been a thing they've been working on for 26 years. Aasimar were a slot filler at best who never really did anything with it, Deva ended up being anti-Rakshasa, and the newer version of Aasimar didn't really give them a unique visual identity. "Animal headed angels" -is- an identity, and its not like Aasimar ever leaned into the "I guess a Guardinal could be your parent" side of things. Drawing from that side and the obvious Egyptian side of things also is a visual design.

Plus there's a very good theory that Ardlings aren't supposed to be the new Aasimar. They're supposed to be the Generic Anthro Race, holding all of your bear people, your wolf people, and so on. The problem of course is I reckon folks are going to want stuff more specific to those animals to fill that niche properly. You don't want angel wings, you want bear-like toughness, or the enhanced senses of a wolf, or just, a ridonculous bite


----------



## EzekielRaiden

DND_Reborn said:


> Also, nothing I said has anything to do with how _I play_ D&D currently, just FYI.



I mean, it helps that you basically play an entirely different game which happens to have the same baseline math as 5e but numerous completely distinct mechanics and rewritten classes...


----------



## DND_Reborn

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, it helps that you basically play an entirely different game which happens to have the same baseline math as 5e but numerous completely distinct mechanics and rewritten classes...



Which has nothing to do at all with the OP.   

Everything in the rant is about the new playtest material and comparing it to RAW 5E.


----------



## James Gasik

Mecheon said:


> I can understand why they want back to the drawing board, given 'A compelling opposite to the tiefling' has been a thing they've been working on for 26 years. Aasimar were a slot filler at best who never really did anything with it, Deva ended up being anti-Rakshasa, and the newer version of Aasimar didn't really give them a unique visual identity. "Animal headed angels" -is- an identity, and its not like Aasimar ever leaned into the "I guess a Guardinal could be your parent" side of things. Drawing from that side and the obvious Egyptian side of things also is a visual design.
> 
> Plus there's a very good theory that Ardlings aren't supposed to be the new Aasimar. They're supposed to be the Generic Anthro Race, holding all of your bear people, your wolf people, and so on. The problem of course is I reckon folks are going to want stuff more specific to those animals to fill that niche properly. You don't want angel wings, you want bear-like toughness, or the enhanced senses of a wolf, or just, a ridonculous bite



Yeah, we haven't really seen them mention Aasimar of different parentage since 2e, when they appeared in the Planeswalker's Handbook.  And now they're a different race entirely.


----------



## Corinnguard

To find Aasimar of different parentage prior to what 1D&D is trying to do, you only need to look at 1st Edition Pathfinder's _Blood of Angels_. In that book you have traits for generic Aasimar (Aasimar who really don't know who their Celestial ancestor was) and 6 distinct Aasimar Heritages- Idyllkin, Angelkin, Lawbringers, Musetouched, Plumekith and Emberkin. These Aasimars were descendants of the Agathions (the PF take on the Guardinals), Angels, Archon, Azata (the PF equivalent of 3e's Eladrin), Garuda and Peri. 

For the Tieflings, check out 1st Edition Pathfinder's _Blood of Fiends. _

I have to wonder why WoTC only now decided to look at the Aasimar and Tieflings this way. Some of the ideas I have seen for 1D&D so far (ex. backgrounds) were already done sometime ago by their competitors- Paizo and now En Publishing.


----------



## TerraDave

They are definitely de-OSing it. I guess the OSR was a thing around when 4e came out, and they needed the biggest tent possible, so that had a lot of nods to pre 3e gaming in 5.0. 

Mandatory feats is the most obvious one, hardwired inspiration is another, race changes a third, but there are a lot of steps away from the first editions here. I mean daggers still do 1d4 damage--probably--clerics remains good healers, elves still seem to be extra special, and so on, but various OS nods are being removed.


----------



## Umbran

TerraDave said:


> They are definitely de-OSing it. I guess the OSR was a thing around when 4e came out, and they needed the biggest tent possible, so that had a lot of nods to pre 3e gaming in 5.0.




Yeah, but in the ensuing years, they've picked up a whole lot of new players, for whom "OS" means diddly.  Several years ago, they looked at who the market was then.  Today, they look at who the market is now.


----------



## Umbran

DND_Reborn said:


> Notice, this is a (-) thread




*Mod Note:*
Just so everyone is clear, we do not support "(-) threads".  It's not a thing.


----------



## TerraDave

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but in the ensuing years, they've picked up a whole lot of new players, for whom "OS" means diddly.  Several years ago, they looked at who the market was then.  Today, they look at who the market is now.



Oh sure. The problem there is that many of those are newish and casual gamers who may not be looking for a jump in complexity, and 1 D&D seems to be at least a little  more complicated.

Turning to 20+ year old game tech like starting feats/talents and hero points isn’t necessarily the answer either for your wave of new players.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> They never cared about that in the D&D Next playtest, why would they start now? "Echo chamber" is precisely what killed the original (much much better) Sorcerer and Warlock concepts, among other things during the public playtest. Why is an echo chamber a problem now when it wasn't back then?



IMO it was a problem back then too; for example how many people dared say there didn't even need to be a Warlock class at all, rather than just suggest tweaking it?


----------



## Greg K

So far, I am, overall, unimpressed. 

 I do like the addition of Orc as a PC race , Primal as a spell category, Thievs' Cant as language acquired from background, and Slowed as a condition

Things to which  I am having mixed reactions to include the feat from backgrounds and moving the ability increases entirely to background. With regards to the former,I like it, but what does this mean for feats being optional?   As for the former, I kind of like how Pathfinder 2 (from what I hear) uses both for increase.
Also, I think backrounds should grant 2 choice from among tool proficiencies and languages. So a character could choose 2 of 1 or 1 of each.

As for the rest,  it did nothin for me- especially the Ardlings.  So many better things they could have included as races, imo.


----------



## ThrorII

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *Mod Note:*
> 
> Hopefully, you mean that in the least offensive way possible, yes?



Of course. I didn't even think of any other way until you pointed it out.

I'm commenting on flying fey (or I guess celestial?) anthropomorphic animals.

I do appreciate the chance to clarify for you, though!


----------



## Morrus

DND_Reborn said:


> Yeah, it was. If this is the level of stuff to expect in a couple years, it will be pretty bad stuff.



_shrug_ It's just a playtest. Give feedback or don't give feedback. 


DND_Reborn said:


> I doubt I'll bother, TBH.



Or not. Up to you, I guess.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Morrus said:


> _shrug_ It's just a playtest. Give feedback or don't give feedback.
> 
> Or not. Up to you, I guess.



If later playtest material looks more promising to me, then I might. But given the type of game I like and the direction WotC is going, I doubt it will be the case. Hopefully, I am wrong. Time will tell.


----------



## Morrus

DND_Reborn said:


> If later playtest material looks more promising to me, then I might. But given the type of game I like and the direction WotC is going, I doubt it will be the case. Hopefully, I am wrong. Time will tell.



I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Morrus said:


> I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.



Good point.

However, in prior UA material, things I gave feedback to which I didn't like nearly always still made it into new material. So, either I am most definitely in the minority OR the "feedback" really isn't considered much unless it appeals to the devs. I highly suspect it is the former, and I would certainly hope not the later.


----------



## Remathilis

DND_Reborn said:


> Good point.
> 
> However, in prior UA material, things I gave feedback to which I didn't like nearly always still made it into new material. So, either I am most definitely in the minority OR the "feedback" really isn't considered much unless it appeals to the devs. I highly suspect it is the former, and I would certainly hope not the later.



I'm sure they read the feedback. Compared the absolute nerdrage from the fey-pocket kender to the more "traditional-boring" ones in the second UA for a good example of which squeaky wheels they are listening to.


----------



## Lanefan

Morrus said:


> I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches.



Ideally, yes.  

In practice, however, we have no way of knowing how cast-in-stone the 5e -> 5.5e changes are and-or how open the designers are to changing any given element be it major or minor.  Which proposed changes are merely proposals and which ones are already locked in?

Baked-in feats as opposed to feats being completely optional, for example - we don't know if this idea really is a trial balloon (meaning feedback on it has relevance) or whether it's locked in (meaning feedback on it is a waste of time).


----------



## Morrus

Lanefan said:


> Ideally, yes.
> 
> In practice, however, we have no way of knowing how cast-in-stone the 5e -> 5.5e changes are and-or how open the designers are to changing any given element be it major or minor.  Which proposed changes are merely proposals and which ones are already locked in?
> 
> Baked-in feats as opposed to feats being completely optional, for example - we don't know if this idea really is a trial balloon (meaning feedback on it has relevance) or whether it's locked in (meaning feedback on it is a waste of time).



 Dunno what to tell you. Do what you gotta  do, I guess.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Morrus said:


> I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.



I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.



Probably. I expect 80%+ of everything will be "loved" in the feedback to be accepted....


----------



## Morrus

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.



You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.






DND_Reborn said:


> Probably. I expect 80%+ of everything will be "loved" in the feedback to be accepted....



If I'm remembering right, a lot of stuff got cut out or changed from the D&D Next playtest. I'm guessing this one will go the same. A lot of wild ideas, not all of them making it to the end.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.



I think it’s a mixed bag.  It’s largely promotional and I am a skeptic.

But I do believe they tweak it with player feedback a la UA.

Well…I may be too skeptical.  Look at D&D next.  You can’t even find some
Of it anymore…they did make changes.

I say mess with this and give feedback


----------



## James Gasik

Oh probably, it's a conspiracy theory, no doubt about it.  But since WotC won't explain why we ended up with the 5e Sorcerer after the extensive playtest, for example, and didn't take steps to even fix the Sorcerer in a small way for several years, it sure may feel like someone at WotC hates the Sorcerer

Especially since it's far from the first time the Sorcerer has been shortchanged...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I think it’s a mixed bag.  It’s largely promotional and I am a skeptic.
> 
> But I do believe they tweak it with player feedback a la UA.
> 
> Well…I may be too skeptical.  Look at D&D next.  You can’t even find some
> Of it anymore…they did make changes.
> 
> I say mess with this and give feedback



Nah, I have Level Up anyway, and my opinions aren't going to sway a corporation.  I'm mostly just curious (trying very hard not to be bitter) and very concerned about third party knock on effects.  I really don't want this to change Level Up, which is by far the best version of 5e I've ever seen.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> Nah, I have Level Up anyway, and my opinions aren't going to sway a corporation.  I'm mostly just curious (trying very hard not to be bitter) and very concerned about third party knock on effects.  I really don't want this to change Level Up, which is by far the best version of 5e I've ever seen.



I get it.  

However, Next really changed.

But then again this will be more bounded…with fewer degrees of freedom if it is to stay compatible.

You convinced me!  Sorry.  I have been on the outs even in this edition.  I get the sentiment…


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DND_Reborn said:


> Having time to read the new UA for 1DD material, here is my in-depth critique. Notice, this is a (-) thread, so feel free to disagree all you want.
> 
> //// BEGIN RANT ////
> 
> Determine Your Origin
> - Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?
> 
> - Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.
> 
> - Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.
> 
> - Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes _sense_ to have it...).
> 
> - Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them _ANY_ two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:
> 
> Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
> DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
> Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
> DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. _shrugs_
> 
> - Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here... Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.
> 
> - Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...
> 
> - Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!
> 
> - Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> - TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least _you can be small or medium_ like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.
> 
> BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)
> 
> - Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just _can't_ be stronger than my Halfling!!!) so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...). When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just _can't_ be smarter than my Sage!"
> 
> - Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?
> 
> - Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.
> 
> 
> FEATS
> Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...
> 
> Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.
> 
> - Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).
> 
> - Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wands and heal-bot PCs!
> 
> - Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.
> 
> - Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make _THIS ONE_ repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...
> 
> - Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on _other creatures_ turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. _yeah_... _yawns_
> 
> - Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.
> 
> - Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.
> 
> D20 Test? (Failed!)
> Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.
> 
> Critical Hits
> No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...
> 
> Grappled
> Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.
> 
> Inspiration
> So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is now "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...
> 
> SPELL LISTS
> Took you long enough....
> 
> //// END RANT ////
> 
> I finally found the words, and they weren't enough.



If plus means we mustn't critique each other to does minus mean we must lol?

But let's see:

1) Kind of agree - they need a better system for mixed characters or just don't do them. Maybe look at what PF2 did, as if they ripped that off, they'd cause 90% of people critiquing this system to go to bloody war with each other (as about 45% are earnest PF2 supporters, and 45% also thing PF2 did it wrong).

2) Aardlings yes, Aasimar no. But no to both of their names. Just like, call them Daevas or something. Man Daevas were SO much freaking cooler than either of these Angel-Furs or Tieflings for Teacher's Pet. Why did we ever get rid of Daevas? Doesn't make any sense. They were like, awesome.

3) THERE ARE NO SMALL DWARVES!!! is just a great thing to randomly yell at people. Also just hilariously stupid.

4) Yeah that's dumb re: no cold resist for Teethlings, pretty sure with 2E Tefalings that was one of the most common things they could have (maybe even built in?).

5) No medium halflings is a brutal insult to the dear memory of Bandobras Took, who was taller than a lot of Dwarves!

6) Backgrounds - Seriously. Agree. Why tie anything to them except maybe Skills? The idea that your Feat has to come from your background seems inherently dim. Language even dimmer.

And they've screwed it up completely again by giving us tons of "Default" backgrounds, which they have to bloody realize most people will read as "THE ONLY BACKGROUNDS THAT ARE LEGAL!!!".

7) Level requirements for Feats is going to end poorly for sure. They'll screw it up. They'll make Feats much worse than L1 Feats require L8, and Feats that are ridiculously nutso powerful be L4.

8) Healer changes - Yeah wth? Why did they nerf the non-magic healing? So dumb. It was already not great. Just add the magic bit on for goodness sake.

9) Savage Attacker - I laughed pretty hard when I saw they'd managed to make one of the very worst Feats even worse.

10) Inspiration is still ultra-trash, not sure why you're worried about balance. It'll just be this dumb thing people forget to use except now everyone will be cursing up a storm when they roll a 20 because everyone in the party already has Inspiration, or everyone but that jerk who keeps using it for trivial bollocks and thus effectively forcing every new point on to him.

They make this ridiculous song-and-dance about how they're making so the game is more like how it's really played, and they don't let Inspiration be either:

A) Added "after the fact"

or

B) Simply used to re-roll

Pretty much everyone who even uses it, uses it that way. They also don't let people have more than 1 point, which is so, so dumb. Like,  I get limiting it, but to 1? No. Go away. Rethink!

11) Spell lists I kind of like this idea but I also hate this idea. So long as they give every class any extra spells it needs (which is a bunch for Bards, for example), then sure, I guess. I do like Primal coming back.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.



So . . . speculation based on absolutely no evidence.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So . . . speculation based on absolutely no evidence.



Yup, speculation.  Did I say it was definitely the case?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Yup, speculation.  Did I say it was definitely the case?



No. I just think it's dumb to come up with what basically amounts to baseless conspiracy theories with no evidence.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No. I just think it's dumb to come up with what basically amounts to baseless conspiracy theories with no evidence.



You are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> You are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.



They've listened to feedback for the D&D Next playtest, previous Unearthed Arcana surveys, and for community backlash after changes that weren't playtested (the removal of alignment from 5e books last year, problematic parts of books, etc). There is no reason to suspect that this time would be any different.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> You are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.



I am cautiously optimistic but do not think you are dumb for not getting your hopes up.

I played 1e right to 3.0…and then maybe should have stuck with it!

I like some of what I have seen for playtesting.

I really like backgrounds and feats/ASI working together but if there is a clause that legalized decoupling them, you can bet people will.  This does not make the game grounded.  That has to be a agreement among the group.

Once again who you play with is every bit as important as what you are playing.  With the right group, I think this could be interesting.  And with the wrong group it will suck.

Keep playing what you like and don’t get discouraged.  I have been left behind in a big way several times but the core fun is always still going to be there.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Lanefan said:


> Next question: will these surveys be open to people who aren't part of the playtest?



unknown... we might just get surveys that we can link here like other UAs


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I suspect ASIs will still be in the core mix. I don't think we're going to see a return to a 3e-style feat-heavy leveling. But, if they were they to move them to optional, I think they'd need to bump up the standard array/ point buy numbers.



dave2008 said:


> My question is are feats replacing ASIs or are Feats default and ASIs optional? Or will ASIs be a "Feat" that you can take at higher levels.


----------



## billd91

Morrus said:


> You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.



There's been a lot of that sentiment going around, and for much of the duration of 5e, I'd say.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.



Seems unlikely how they stressed it was a playtest in the video and how the Next playtest went (and people had the same fears you share here back then too). 

Now, I think people are mistaken if they think everything is on the table for revisions. If that is what you think they are suggesting with this playtest, then yes it could feel like a sham. This is a playtest for a very narrow set of options/revisions/tweaks. They still very much want this to be 5e and a lot is simply not on the table for discussion. But what is up for discussion, I believe the honestly want peoples thoughts and opinions.


----------



## CleverNickName

DND_Reborn said:


> Having time to read the new UA for 1DD material, here is my in-depth critique. Notice, this is a (-) thread, so feel free to disagree all you want.
> 
> //// BEGIN RANT ////
> 
> Determine Your Origin
> - Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?
> 
> - Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.
> 
> - Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.
> 
> - Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes _sense_ to have it...).
> 
> - Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them _ANY_ two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:
> 
> Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
> DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
> Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
> DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. _shrugs_
> 
> - Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here... Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.
> 
> - Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...
> 
> - Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!
> 
> - Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> - TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least _you can be small or medium_ like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.
> 
> BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)
> 
> - Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just _can't_ be stronger than my Halfling!!!) so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...). When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just _can't_ be smarter than my Sage!"
> 
> - Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?
> 
> - Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.
> 
> 
> FEATS
> Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...
> 
> Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.
> 
> - Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).
> 
> - Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wands and heal-bot PCs!
> 
> - Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.
> 
> - Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make _THIS ONE_ repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...
> 
> - Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on _other creatures_ turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. _yeah_... _yawns_
> 
> - Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.
> 
> - Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.
> 
> D20 Test? (Failed!)
> Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.
> 
> Critical Hits
> No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...
> 
> Grappled
> Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.
> 
> Inspiration
> So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is now "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...
> 
> SPELL LISTS
> Took you long enough....
> 
> //// END RANT ////
> 
> I finally found the words, and they weren't enough.



I'm not seeing very much "new" in this "new playtest."  Certainly not enough to get myself worked up over.  Most of the stuff they brought out for races has already been done--and done better--by _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  _But in the spirit of the OP's post, here is my response.  (Sorry it's not completely [-], as requested, but it's certainly not all [+].)

*Children of Different Humanoid Kinds:  *We are already doing this at my table.  Well, sort of:  we use the optional character options in _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything_ to create or customize any of the race options in the game.  You want to play a humanoid squirrel-person?  A half-medusa?  A half-elf with a dwarven mother?  TCoE page 10.

*Size has no bearing:  *This isn't really a "One D&D" thing; this has always been a 5th Edition thing as far as I can tell.

*Ardlings:  *_Tasha's Cauldron of Everything_ makes this unnecessary.

*Small dragonborn, dwarves, elves; medium halflings:  *Again, we already have _Tasha's._  This is a weird argument too, considering the whole "size has no bearing" argument above.  If size ever matters, and if it ever matters so much that I need stats for a Small Dragonborn, _TCoE_ has the rules I need to create it.

*Half-races:  *_Tasha's._  Build the one you want, the way you want.

*Tieflings:  *If you don't like the way any race is presented (like the cold damage vs. necrotic)...yep, _TCoE_.

*Moving ASIs to Background: *We use the optional rules in _TCoE_, that allows the player to assign racial ASIs to any ability score they wish.  Kind of makes this obsolete.

*Feats at 1st Level: *I think it makes perfect sense to tie them to Background--but you can probably guess what I'm about to say:

_Tasha's Cauldron of Everything_ already has rules for feats at 1st level, for any character race that you want. 

*Specific changes to specific feats:  *My players don't use Alert, Healer, Skilled, or Tavern Brawler.  And I house-ruled long ago that Magic Initiate, Skilled, Resilient, Ritual Caster, etc. were repeatable, but in 8 years of regular play in three different gaming groups, this issue has never come up.

Most players like the Lucky feat, but they never remember to use it.  So for us, that one is a tempest in a teapot.

*Critical Hits:  *Yuck.  I won't be changing this.  Critical hits/failures add a layer of chaos and swing that we've grown to appreciate at the table.  We're not giving that up just to make combat more predictable. 

*Inspiration:  *My players award inspiration to each other at my table, per the optional rule in the DMG.  I plan to keep it that way.  I have enough on my plate already...


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Seems unlikely how they stressed it was a playtest in the video and how the Next playtest went (and people had the same fears you share here back then too).
> 
> Now, I think people are mistaken if they think everything is on the table for revisions. If that is what you think they are suggesting with this playtest, then yes it could feel like a sham. This is a playtest for a very narrow set of options/revisions/tweaks. They still very much want this to be 5e and a lot is simply not on the table for discussion. But what is up for discussion, I believe the honestly want peoples thoughts and opinions.



If they were clear about what was and was not on the table for potential customer input, I would likely feel differently. But they aren't clear, so I have no reason to trust their marketing rhetoric.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> If they were clear about what was and was not on the table for potential customer input, I would likely feel differently. But they aren't clear, so I have no reason to trust their marketing rhetoric.



OK, but it isn't about trusting them. Just trust what is in front of you and don't jump to conclusions.  At least that would be my advice.


----------



## Aldarc

Morrus said:


> You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.



The alternative is having to admit that there is no grand conspiracy going on and that their opinions are in the minority or fringe.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> OK, but it isn't about trusting them. Just trust what is in front of you and don't jump to conclusions.  At least that would be my advice.



That doesn't make sense to me in this context.  They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them.  How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?


----------



## Morrus

This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Morrus said:


> This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.




Yep!

They are playtesting small changes.

But based on the threads, you would think that they have announced that they are murdering puppies.


----------



## wicked cool

did they say the changes to races are official? why make these changes in the newest books and then backtrack out of them (dragonborn breath attack was recently changed is an example). 

is there new leadership running this? related-watching a video on the new starter set and it doesnt build on the 2nd starter set. they had a great idea for sidekicks but if you didnt pick that set up you would have no idea.  

it feels like pieces are being lost on the way with changes made


----------



## CleverNickName

Morrus said:


> This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.



It really has!  Which is not entirely unexpected, I guess...we've seen this happen before.

For some folks, change is always a bad thing...it's either immediately bad, or it's a portent of bad things to come, or it's an indictment against things they enjoy, or some weird combination of the three.

But I must have gotten a lot older since 2008 and 2009.  Or maybe the pandemic etc. has given me more perspective on such things?  Not sure.  I just can't get as engaged as WotC needs me to be.  I've been trying to get excited about it, but all I've got are cartoon memes and jokes, or the occasional, unhelpful "doesn't Tasha's already do this?"   It feels like just an extra-noisy Unearthed Arcana to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Morrus said:


> You think it’s all just a big trick? That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me, I’m afraid.



I mean that is an extreme... but thinking that this is more market testing and less playtesting isn't really that machiavellian is it?


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.




Given that the stuff seen in D&D Next changed significantly over the course of the playtest, from initial playtest materials to final version, this suspicion doesn't seem to be based in evidence.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> That doesn't make sense to me in this context.  They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them.  How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?



All of the rule changes presented are subject to customer input, why would you think otherwise? It will probably become more clear in the survey I guess, but why would you assume some of the changes are not up for customer input? I mean, how do you: "...know it isn't all of them."

For example, people where that Tasha's racial ability score revisions we definitely going to be the 2024 standard. No change, that was it. Yet, the changed it it in the very first playtest UA.  It seems to me anything is up for grabs.

I bet they currently feel more confident about some changes more than others, but I am sure that if a change gets a really bad reaction it will be revised or dropped.


----------



## Umbran

GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean that is an extreme... but thinking that this is more market testing and less playtesting isn't really that machiavellian is it?




When you are in the game business, playtesting is, by necessity, market testing - you are seeing if the game you have works and is fun _for the market_.


----------



## Sabathius42

Umbran said:


> Given that the stuff seen in D&D Next changed significantly over the course of the playtest, from initial playtest materials to final version, this suspicion doesn't seem to be based in evidence.



I don't agree at all with the idea that this is a false playtest, but I do think that because the end result has to be compatible with 5e there are a lot more invisible barriers to where the material can end up than when DnD Next was happening.

It's like we are remodeling a house (but can't change any load bearing features) rather than building a new house with reclaimed parts of the old one.


----------



## Umbran

Sabathius42 said:


> I don't agree at all with the idea that this is a false playtest, but I do think that because the end result has to be compatible with 5e there are a lot more invisible barriers to where the material can end up than when DnD Next was happening.




I don't think they are "invisible".  I think, as well-versed gamers, we can probably see them when we look and think about it a bit.



Sabathius42 said:


> It's like we are remodeling a house (but can't change any load bearing features) rather than building a new house with reclaimed parts of the old one.




The question there becomes "What is a load-bearing feature?"


----------



## Retreater

The way I see it, these are some things that can't change in 5.5/6e/D&D Larry without risking breaking compatibility. 

Bounded accuracy/flattened math
Action economy (with bonus actions)
Spell progression and class feature accumulation
Healing and recovery
Default encounter building and challenge assumptions


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Retreater said:


> The way I see it, these are some things that can't change in 5.5/6e/D&D Larry without risking breaking compatibility.
> 
> Bounded accuracy/flattened math
> Action economy (with bonus actions)
> Spell progression and class feature accumulation
> Healing and recovery
> Default encounter building and challenge assumptions



I think the last two are possible to change, but you have to accept there will be knock-on effects. Not enough to break basic compatibility though, imho. With Healing/Recovery you could change the default, but have an optional rule for the old default, and note that older material had that default.

With encounter building, I think you could change back to 3-4 "Hard" (by 5E rules) encounters as the default without causing a major problem. But yeah if you want much further than that you'd be changing maths more fundamentally.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Morrus said:


> This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.



Frankly, after my OP I really expected this to disappear into obscurity after half a dozen posts or something. I'm amazed people are still here.


----------



## a.everett1287

I don't think it had that far to travel.







Morrus said:


> This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Retreater said:


> The way I see it, these are some things that can't change in 5.5/6e/D&D Larry without risking breaking compatibility.
> 
> Bounded accuracy/flattened math
> Action economy (with bonus actions)
> Spell progression and class feature accumulation
> Healing and recovery
> Default encounter building and challenge assumptions




I also think the last 2 should change to make the game better.
Prewritten adventures already don't really follow these assumtions, and even if they do, players don't want to play that way and recover more than they should.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> And they've screwed it up completely again by giving us tons of "Default" backgrounds, which they have to bloody realize most people will read as "THE ONLY BACKGROUNDS THAT ARE LEGAL!!!".




Why is lack of reading comprehension WotC's problem?



Ruin Explorer said:


> 8) Healer changes - Yeah wth? Why did they nerf the non-magic healing? So dumb. It was already not great. Just add the magic bit on for goodness sake.
> 
> 9) Savage Attacker - I laughed pretty hard when I saw they'd managed to make one of the very worst Feats even worse.




Agree, these both need buffed. Though, I have noted that the Healer feat can be repeatable for immediate healing. I'm considering doing the following

you can heal 1d6+4+prof once for free per short rest. Otherwise it costs and HD and is HD + prof + their Con. I also want to give something for during short rests, but I'm not sure what. 

Savage attacker... someone said something interesting about combining it with Charger, I'm going to be looking into that soon.



Ruin Explorer said:


> 10) Inspiration is still ultra-trash, not sure why you're worried about balance. It'll just be this dumb thing people forget to use except now everyone will be cursing up a storm when they roll a 20 because everyone in the party already has Inspiration, or everyone but that jerk who keeps using it for trivial bollocks and thus effectively forcing every new point on to him.




This is the most utterly bizarre argument I have ever seen. 

On one hand, it will be terrible because everyone will hoard it and it will be wasted when they roll 20's. On the other hand, it will be terrible because one player won't hoard it and will get all that inspiration that would otherwise be wasted because no one can take it. 

Huh? How is the player using their resource and taking what no one else can because they are all waiting for the long rest to delete their inspiration they held on to "just in case" a jerk? Seems like he's just lucky to be playing with a bunch of hoarders with good dice luck.



Ruin Explorer said:


> They make this ridiculous song-and-dance about how they're making so the game is more like how it's really played, and they don't let Inspiration be either:
> 
> A) Added "after the fact"
> 
> or
> 
> B) Simply used to re-roll
> 
> Pretty much everyone who even uses it, uses it that way. They also don't let people have more than 1 point, which is so, so dumb. Like,  I get limiting it, but to 1? No. Go away. Rethink!




Other than the harsh rhetoric, I agree. I think using it for a re-roll or after the fact is the way to go. Heck, I'm planning on looking around and seeing if I can't build more funtionality into Inspiration anyways.


----------



## Lanefan

I'm sad to see they appear to want to lean even further into Inspiration.  It's that type of meta mechanic - the type that has nothing to do with reflecting the fiction, instead it's "here, have a bennie" purely at the table level - that I'd prefer to see completely excised.


----------



## cbwjm

CleverNickName said:


> *Size has no bearing: *This isn't really a "One D&D" thing; this has always been a 5th Edition thing as far as I can tell.



About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.


----------



## Charlaquin

cbwjm said:


> About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.



We also don’t know for sure that this will continue to be the case. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Heavy quality removed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> Why is lack of reading comprehension WotC's problem?



I just cackled so loud IRL some dude in the street was looking in the window at me aghast.

Are you serious? I mean come on dude lol.

It's their game! It's absolutely their problem if people don't understand. If I write a manual for one of our products, and even people who read it are missing something because I didn't make it really clear, that's on me, and that's something that I need to fix, and more importantly, want to fix.

It's on the designers to make sure common misunderstandings and misinterpretations don't happen. And it's not hard to do. The easiest way would be to just, as someone suggested, make all those backgrounds be obviously specific to individuals.

Like, if it was a rare problem, sure, that's not WotC's fault, but this is such a widespread problem and it impacts even a lot of smart, experienced DMs, who just don't get custom is the default, and anything else is a choice. We literally had people here in the thread about backgrounds not realizing custom was the default - even though they'd just read something which tried to explain to them (ineptly in my view) that custom was the default. I say ineptly because it waffled and didn't just bold one-sentence "*Custom is the default*", which it could have.


Chaosmancer said:


> you can heal 1d6+4+prof once for free per short rest. Otherwise it costs and HD and is HD + prof + their Con. I also want to give something for during short rests, but I'm not sure what.



Yeah I like that.


Chaosmancer said:


> Savage attacker... someone said something interesting about combining it with Charger, I'm going to be looking into that soon.



The danger with Savage Attacker is taking it from "lol rubbish" to "must have for all melees", and I think adding in Charger might do that. I'd sooner see Savage Attacker deleted outright and the ability to Charge made baseline, like it is in 3E and 4E and possibly even 1E and 2E.


Chaosmancer said:


> This is the most utterly bizarre argument I have ever seen.



It is not lol. You've seen worse. I've made worse and you've read it!  

My point is that because it just gives Advantage it's going to get not intentionally "hoarded", but rather not spent. That's very different from "hoarded" where it's intentional.

And yes one player will likely keep spending it - probably a Rogue (or a Crit Fisher if there is one), but most players will just keep not spending it. What you're not likely to see if everyone spending it because of how it works.

If we make it a re-roll, everyone will spend it a lot, and mechanically it's extremely similar to Advantage, but it feels a lot better to get a re-roll (even if it fails, weirdly, then it's just like "Oh the fates were against it!").


----------



## Chaosmancer

cbwjm said:


> About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.




I do agree that Small characters need to be given some sort of benefit, instead of pure penalties, but I honestly can't think of anything that they either don't get through logic (easier to hide) or would break the game (bonus to AC)


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> I just cackled so loud IRL some dude in the street was looking in the window at me aghast.
> 
> Are you serious? I mean come on dude lol.
> 
> It's their game! It's absolutely their problem if people don't understand. If I write a manual for one of our products, and even people who read it are missing something because I didn't make it really clear, that's on me, and that's something that I need to fix, and more importantly, want to fix.
> 
> It's on the designers to make sure common misunderstandings and misinterpretations don't happen. And it's not hard to do. The easiest way would be to just, as someone suggested, make all those backgrounds be obviously specific to individuals.
> 
> Like, if it was a rare problem, sure, that's not WotC's fault, but this is such a widespread problem and it impacts even a lot of smart, experienced DMs, who just don't get custom is the default, and anything else is a choice. We literally had people here in the thread about backgrounds not realizing custom was the default - even though they'd just read something which tried to explain to them (ineptly in my view) that custom was the default. I say ineptly because it waffled and didn't just bold one-sentence "*Custom is the default*", which it could have.




Right, but... have you read the document? I'll spoil it just in case, I just want to make a point. I'll be bolding the important sections.



Spoiler: Beginning of the Backgrounds section



CHARACTER BACKGROUNDS

Your character’s Background is a collection of characteristics that represent the place and occupation that were most formative for the character before they embarked on a life of adventure.

*When you choose a Background, you have three options:*


*Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.*
Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
*Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.*
No matter which Background you choose, consider these questions from your character’s viewpoint:

How does your Background influence your current worldview?
Do you embrace or reject your Background?
Did you form any relationships during your Background that endure today?
*BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND

Using the rules here, you can build a Background from scratch or customize a premade Background, focusing on details** related to the backstory you have in mind for your character.*

*When you build a Background, your character gains the features in the “Background Features” section below. As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?*

*If you instead decide to customize a premade Background, you can choose any features in that Background and replace them with the features below of the same name. For example, if you want to change a Background’s Language feature, you can replace that feature with the Language feature below.*

[Skipping the actual rules text]

*SAMPLE BACKGROUNDS*

*Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section,* and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory.



All of the stuff I bolded? That is all telling the reader that customizing backgrounds is the primary way to do things. They not only put building your own first, they bookended the idea of choosing a premade with using the the rules to make one or taking a premade and customizing it.

Other than literally doing what I am doing and bolding massive sections of the text, how much clearer do they need to be? They devoted an entire page to telling people to make their own, before they even wrote the first sample background, this is all the top of the background rules, first thing you read. They were incredibly clear. Their announcement where they did the interview was incredibly clear. At what point does it stop being their fault that people don't read the rules they are writing?

All the clarity of language in the world won't help someone who doesn't read it. And that isn't on the writer.



Ruin Explorer said:


> The danger with Savage Attacker is taking it from "lol rubbish" to "must have for all melees", and I think adding in Charger might do that. I'd sooner see Savage Attacker deleted outright and the ability to Charge made baseline, like it is in 3E and 4E and possibly even 1E and 2E.




Honestly the current charger feat always felt incredibly poor to me. Yes, it gives you a single attack when you otherwise wouldn't get the chance, but it is in such niche circumstances that no one I have played with since 5e began has felt it was worth a feat. Same is true for savage attacker, which is sounds incredible, until you realize the actual effect is so tiny.

Combining them might be a good way to make them both viable, without making them must haves, because sentinel and other melee feats are still incredibly good



Ruin Explorer said:


> It is not lol. You've seen worse. I've made worse and you've read it!
> 
> My point is that because it just gives Advantage it's going to get not intentionally "hoarded", but rather not spent. That's very different from "hoarded" where it's intentional.
> 
> And yes one player will likely keep spending it - probably a Rogue (or a Crit Fisher if there is one), but most players will just keep not spending it. What you're not likely to see if everyone spending it because of how it works.
> 
> If we make it a re-roll, everyone will spend it a lot, and mechanically it's extremely similar to Advantage, but it feels a lot better to get a re-roll (even if it fails, weirdly, then it's just like "Oh the fates were against it!").




What I find strange about your logic is "just advantage" is all Lucky (the new version) is. Yet no one seems to think that players will never take or use Lucky. In fact, people still think it is pretty good.

I don't disagree that in practice people use Inspiration for re-rolls, and that that feels like a better use for it than getting advantage. That just feels like the entire point of discussion should be focused on how we spend Inspiration, not calling how we gain it pointless.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> What I find strange about your logic is "just advantage" is all Lucky (the new version) is. Yet no one seems to think that players will never take or use Lucky. In fact, people still think it is pretty good.



Nope, it's a re-roll.

Read the text for Lucky:

"Immediately *after you roll a d20 *for a d20 Test,* you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll."

Bold mine. It's a re-roll, like I'm suggesting this should be. Sure, they're phrasing it as giving yourself Advantage, but that, I'm pretty sure, is a balance measure to prevent people getting "double Advantage" - you obviously logically cannot use Lucky if you already had Advantage on the roll because they're calling it that.

But it's a re-roll, because it's _after you roll, thus after you see the number_. Whereas Inspiration demands you pick before you roll. I'm suggesting changing to be like Lucky.



Chaosmancer said:


> All the clarity of language in the world won't help someone who doesn't read it. And that isn't on the writer.



Sure.

That's why I'm not really advocating for clarity of language. I'm suggesting any and all example backgrounds should be not called generic stuff like "Guard", but as someone else suggested, should be, "Trinxie Bigglebottom, Town Guard" - i.e. a specific name. Combine with with a bold text reminder (maybe put it in a box too!) that Custom backgrounds are default, and we're cooking with gas. But the names will be so off-putting even the dimmest people will FINALLY register that "Oh, these are only examples!".

So it is on the writer. I've had to do stuff like this.


----------



## nevin

DND_Reborn said:


> Having time to read the new UA for 1DD material, here is my in-depth critique. Notice, this is a (-) thread, so feel free to disagree all you want.
> 
> //// BEGIN RANT ////
> 
> Determine Your Origin
> - Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?
> 
> - Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.
> 
> - Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.
> 
> - Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes _sense_ to have it...).
> 
> - Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them _ANY_ two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:
> 
> Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
> DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
> Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
> DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. _shrugs_
> 
> - Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here... Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.
> 
> - Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...
> 
> - Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!
> 
> - Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.
> 
> - TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least _you can be small or medium_ like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.
> 
> BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)
> 
> - Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just _can't_ be stronger than my Halfling!!!) so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...). When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just _can't_ be smarter than my Sage!"
> 
> - Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?
> 
> - Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.
> 
> 
> FEATS
> Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...
> 
> Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.
> 
> - Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).
> 
> - Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wands and heal-bot PCs!
> 
> - Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.
> 
> - Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make _THIS ONE_ repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...
> 
> - Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on _other creatures_ turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. _yeah_... _yawns_
> 
> - Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.
> 
> - Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.
> 
> D20 Test? (Failed!)
> Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.
> 
> Critical Hits
> No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...
> 
> Grappled
> Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.
> 
> Inspiration
> So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is now "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...
> 
> SPELL LISTS
> Took you long enough....
> 
> //// END RANT ////
> 
> I finally found the words, and they weren't enough.



everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else.  The modern desire to make everything equal and fair.  Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Cosigned. I like inspiration as a way to guide the style of play and reward players for playing the game in such a way that's creative and exciting and making the game more enjoyable for everyone. Just getting it because you roll a 20 seems to relegate it to a mechanical reward.



Lanefan said:


> I'm sad to see they appear to want to lean even further into Inspiration.  It's that type of meta mechanic - the type that has nothing to do with reflecting the fiction, instead it's "here, have a bennie" purely at the table level - that I'd prefer to see completely excised.


----------



## DND_Reborn

nevin said:


> everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else.  The modern desire to make everything equal and fair.  Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.


----------



## Sabathius42

nevin said:


> everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else.  The modern desire to make everything equal and fair.  Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.



I'll bite.  Can you give me an example where unfairness is a positive in game design?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

DND_Reborn said:


> View attachment 258982



Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something. 

Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.


----------



## Chaosmancer

nevin said:


> everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else.  The modern desire to make everything equal and fair.  Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.




I still want it, even after having it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

nevin said:


> everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else.  The modern desire to make everything equal and fair.  Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.



Good luck telling that to people that like 4e.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something.
> 
> Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.



I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie.  All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles.  What did you see in the film that supports your point?


----------



## Chaosmancer

Ruin Explorer said:


> Nope, it's a re-roll.
> 
> Read the text for Lucky:
> 
> "Immediately *after you roll a d20 *for a d20 Test,* you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll."
> 
> Bold mine. It's a re-roll, like I'm suggesting this should be. Sure, they're phrasing it as giving yourself Advantage, but that, I'm pretty sure, is a balance measure to prevent people getting "double Advantage" - you obviously logically cannot use Lucky if you already had Advantage on the roll because they're calling it that.
> 
> But it's a re-roll, because it's _after you roll, thus after you see the number_. Whereas Inspiration demands you pick before you roll. I'm suggesting changing to be like Lucky.




I agree with you on the proposed change to inspiration, but I do want to note the Disadvantage part of lucky is BEFORE you see the roll. 

I think they all will end up being after the roll though. It is just how the timing of the table works.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure.
> 
> That's why I'm not really advocating for clarity of language. I'm suggesting any and all example backgrounds should be not called generic stuff like "Guard", but as someone else suggested, should be, "Trinxie Bigglebottom, Town Guard" - i.e. a specific name. Combine with with a bold text reminder (maybe put it in a box too!) that Custom backgrounds are default, and we're cooking with gas. But the names will be so off-putting even the dimmest people will FINALLY register that "Oh, these are only examples!".
> 
> So it is on the writer. I've had to do stuff like this.




Okay, I could see that being a way to do it. 

I actually like that idea quite a bit. Would be a nice way to get Icons or whatever they are called.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Micah Sweet said:


> I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie.  All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles.  What did you see in the film that supports your point?




What super power does the guy all the heroes turn to to help them have?


----------



## DND_Reborn

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.



Everyone could be... but the point is _not everyone is_ special.


----------



## MGibster

Sabathius42 said:


> I'll bite. Can you give me an example where unfairness is a positive in game design?



In Eden Studio's _Buffy the Vampire Slayer, _there are different power levels you can build player characters at.  You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy.  The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters.  A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one.  Of course there's some balancing going on there.  Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while).  These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene.  And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.  

This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

DND_Reborn said:


> Everyone could be... but the point is _not everyone is_ special.



Sure. But the PCs can all be equally special without it taking away from the other PCs. Commoners are the non-Specials in D&D worlds.


----------



## Sabathius42

MGibster said:


> In Eden Studio's _Buffy the Vampire Slayer, _there are different power levels you can build player characters at.  You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy.  The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters.  A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one.  Of course there's some balancing going on there.  Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while).  These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene.  And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.
> 
> This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.



Having never played it I can't comment on the game directly, but it sounds like you are describing a system which is fair but unequal in character powers.  Essentially the slayer plays one game and the minions play a different game with different rules and goals along side of them, leaving id assume everyone having a good time.

Unfair would be a system (or portion of that system) designed to have some characters inferior to others in all respects...but still have them engage in the same activities.


----------



## Lanefan

Sabathius42 said:


> Having never played it I can't comment on the game directly, but it sounds like you are describing a system which is fair but unequal in character powers.  Essentially the slayer plays one game and the minions play a different game with different rules and goals along side of them, leaving id assume everyone having a good time.



Star Wars games work that way, don't they?  You've got the Jedi, and then everyone else.


----------



## Staffan

Lanefan said:


> Star Wars games work that way, don't they?  You've got the Jedi, and then everyone else.



Our Star Wars: Age of Rebellion game didn't last long enough for the PC who took the "Force-sensitive emergent" specialization (in addition to their main one), but my impression was that getting anywhere with the Force took a *lot* of XP. You need to both dump XP into the specialization's talent tree, unlock force powers (e.g. Move, Heal/Harm, Boost), and then dump a lot of XP into the force power's own talent tree.

In addition, raw "oomph" for force powers is very limited unless you allow players access to specializations from the sibling games. When you first take a force-sensitive specialization, you get a force rating of 1. That means you roll 1 force die, which is a d12 which has two sides giving you 1 force point to spend on activating a force power, and three sides giving 2 force points. So with one die there's a 58% chance of just not succeeding at all. The Force-sensitive emergent talent tree has one talent at the deepest level giving +1 force rating (so the talent itself is fairly expensive, and you also need to buy at least four cheaper talents before taking that one), for a force rating of 2 (which is a 34% chance of failure). In order to get a higher force rating than that, your GM needs to allow you to buy into specializations from other books. There's a similar talent tree in Edge of the Empire, and of course almost all the specializations from Force & Destiny are force-oriented, but I don't think there are any talent trees with more than one talent for +1 force rating, and it's pretty much always at the deepest level.

In other words, becoming a powerful force user in FFG's Star Wars games is extremely XP-hungry, but has a high ceiling.

It should be noted that this means force use is somewhat segregated. In Force & Destiny games, all the PCs are expected to be some variety of force user, but in the others it's a highly optional thing you can buy into and that likely won't be a powergaming move at all.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Chaosmancer said:


> It is just how the timing of the table works.



Hahahaha yeah I hope so, but I've found that WotC seem to be hopelessly unrealistic about that, and likes to suggest timings which are just rarely going to work, like, the incredibly annoying "After you roll but before the DM tells you if you succeed", which is like, 100% dependent on how quick the DM is to tell you that, and whether you're good at interrupting if they start trying to. I'd go as far as to say it's borderline ableist/discriminatory because not everyone is that quick on the draw for all sorts of reasons. Even ignoring that it basically makes it a game of "can you shout fast enough", which like, fine if this is snap or spoons or something, not so great for an RPG.

My feeling is that, unlike a lot of stuff, they don't have "standardized" approaches to the timing of re-rolls or applying buffs or the like, and I think they need to acquire standardized approaches. Ones that work at all tables. So like, even if the DM jumps in with "MISS!" the split second the die stops rolling, you can use your re-roll.

Note that the DMG contains absolutely no advice about this from the DM's side either, AFAICT, no "pause after a roll but before announcing the results" or something. And even that would be silly because in an exciting game people would just forget.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Lanefan said:


> Star Wars games work that way, don't they?  You've got the Jedi, and then everyone else.



WEG D6 and WotC d20 ones didn't. Force-users are notionally roughly balanced with those who are not. In practice in both rules-sets I didn't feel like Force-users had a consistent advantage in mechanical terms, but obviously they have some options others do not (depending on exactly what powers they have). In WEG D6 Force-users tend to be skill-poor to the point where they kind of rely on more competent PCs a lot of the time though. The more recent one might. Ars Magica does, but everyone has multiple characters to offset that.


----------



## Chaosmancer

DND_Reborn said:


> Everyone could be... but the point is _not everyone is_ special.




And those people are called Non-Player Characters.

Edit: Which is to say, if the argument is that only some people at the table get to feel special. That's a problem. The role of an adventurer shouldn't be decided that some of them are special and others aren't so that the special people can feel even better. 

DnD is a team game, everyone on the team gets to feel special.


----------



## wicked cool

i wonder when the actual deadline will be for 1 D&D. We are in 2022 and they just released this information . When does this get to the "pre final draft" and has to be edited etc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> WEG D6 and WotC d20 ones didn't. Force-users are notionally roughly balanced with those who are not. In practice in both rules-sets I didn't feel like Force-users had a consistent advantage in mechanical terms, but obviously they have some options others do not (depending on exactly what powers they have). In WEG D6 Force-users tend to be skill-poor to the point where they kind of rely on more competent PCs a lot of the time though. The more recent one might. Ars Magica does, but everyone has multiple characters to offset that.



The funny thing is, in fiction people with magic powers are almost always stronger than those without, and the balance is made up for narratively.


----------



## TheSword

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah, that is a nerf. I'll be asking for that to get a buff in the document. Might also ask for "Healing Kits" to be significantly changed.



I’d like to see that happen on any medicine check with a healer kit - spend a HD

With the healer feat doing double plus a few other things.


----------



## TheSword

Our main group is adopting the UA changes wholesale and are going to run with them through Scarlet Citadel. 

It’s seems to me they are broken down into two groups…

1/ Things I think are improvements : linking more to background, 1st level feats, grappling, crits, changes to some of the feats like Lucky etc.

2/ Things that I could care less about - Ardlings, whether races can be small or not, changes to other feats etc.

There is not one thing in this play test that would fall into a third category of 3./ things that drive me to incandescent rage, so that’s a win. I can recognize that small humans and ardlings are going to appeal to some people and don’t really cause me any offense so I don’t really see the point of getting in a tiz about it. 

Give the feedback and let WOC make the decisions based on the feedback. I do think it is possible for WOC to provide additional things for the new wave players without taking away from oldies.


----------



## nevin

the problem with equal and fair is they are reliant on perspective and  no two people have the same perspective.  Every character should get their chance to shine but trying to give other people fair and equal in a way they agree with is like herding cats.


----------



## Marandahir

Chaosmancer said:


> I do agree that Small characters need to be given some sort of benefit, instead of pure penalties, but I honestly can't think of anything that they either don't get through logic (easier to hide) or would break the game (bonus to AC)



How about letting Small characters move through Medium+ non-hostile character's spaces without it counting as difficult terrain, and allow them to move through Medium+ hostile character's spaces but provoke opportunity attacks?

I guess that would only really affect tactical play and not theatre of the mind, but maybe that's a good thing…


----------



## Lanefan

Marandahir said:


> How about letting Small characters move through Medium+ non-hostile character's spaces without it counting as difficult terrain, and allow them to move through Medium+ hostile character's spaces but provoke opportunity attacks?



If the opposition (or charcter, I suppose) is on legs, then sure.  But if it's an ooze or gelatinous cube or something else that fills the whole space, you ain't gettin' through there no matter what.


----------



## Marandahir

Lanefan said:


> If the opposition (or charcter, I suppose) is on legs, then sure.  But if it's an ooze or gelatinous cube or something else that fills the whole space, you ain't gettin' through there no matter what.



Fair point, I was imagining humanoids and beasts, not oozes. Perhaps that could be an Ooze-type keyword exception (Oozes automatically trap a character of any size smaller than them that try to pass through their space). Meanwhile, normally, being 2 sizes smaller lets you attempt that pass-through, but maybe they could make that a 1 size smaller with the disadvantage/difficult terrain/provokes opportunity attacks.


----------



## Parmandur

wicked cool said:


> i wonder when the actual deadline will be for 1 D&D. We are in 2022 and they just released this information . When does this get to the "pre final draft" and has to be edited etc.



Their usual turnaround for a book to be printed is about two months, and about a year to actually wrote and get thw art together. Plenty of time if the playtest goes smoothly, and still plenty of time if they need to take a couple extra months.


----------

