# New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.



## darjr (Nov 30, 2022)

From the latest One D&D survey response video


> UNEARTHED ARCANA
> 
> 
> The document on December 1st is the third in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player's Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!







You’ll find it here, for convenience.








						One D&D Playtest
					

One D&D Playtest Materials  Get the One D&D playtest content, try it out in your game, and then provide feedback! Check back each month for new cont...




					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## darjr (Nov 30, 2022)

D&D 5E - WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!
					

In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below.  High Scorers  The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 30, 2022)

The video notes that the Cleric will be the only class in this playtest, with the Druid and Paladin following later (there will also be revised versions of the Ardling and Dragonborn). A bit disappointing to me, since I'd love to have a longer playtest document to try out over Christmas break.


----------



## Azzy (Nov 30, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> The video notes that the Cleric will be the only class in this playtest, with the Druid and Paladin following later (there will also be revised versions of the Ardling and Dragonborn). A bit disappointing to me, since I'd love to have a longer playtest document to try out over Christmas break.



Disappointing. I was really hoping to get fighters and monks.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Nov 30, 2022)

I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.

I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 30, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.
> 
> I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be heard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.



I think (and hope to heck) that we will see significant change to the healing spells presented in the 2014 phb & possibly one or more variants of what happens at zero hp. Those are pretty important parts of the cleric as a class


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> From the latest One D&D survey response video
> 
> View attachment 268343
> You’ll find it here, for convenience.
> ...



DarJr,

I appreciate you doing this kind of stuff. We hear if from you first!


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 30, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> The video notes that the Cleric will be the only class in this playtest, with the Druid and Paladin following later (there will also be revised versions of the Ardling and Dragonborn). A bit disappointing to me, since I'd love to have a longer playtest document to try out over Christmas break.



The Cleric is a legacy class and important for 1dd to get right.

Maybe because the Rogue has always been popular it was possible to zoom thru it alongside Bard and Ranger.

I hope the Fighter similarly gets an entire UA dedicating to it by itself. It needs to be excellent for all of the different player styles.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 30, 2022)

I hope the 1dd Cleric is less setting dependent − and able to work well for nontheistic flavors for various regions and worlds.

Anything relating to cosmology belongs in the DMs guide, not the Cleric class description.


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 30, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I hope the 1dd Cleric is less setting dependent − and able to work well for nontheistic flavors for various regions and worlds.
> 
> Anything relating to cosmology belongs in the DMs guide, not the Cleric class description.




I agree that cosmology belongs as DMG suggestions, but I've never had an issue using the Cleric class for non-theistic or non-religious characters. As long as the player and DM are on the same page flavor-wise, the actual mechanics are fairly agnostic with regard to power source.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I agree that cosmology belongs as DMG suggestions, but I've never had an issue using the Cleric class for non-theistic or non-religious characters. As long as the player and DM are on the same page flavor-wise, the actual mechanics are fairly agnostic with regard to power source.



To me the flavor matters, in some ways more than the mechanics. I value mechanics and flavor equally.

I need the flavor of the Cleric class description to welcome nontheistic religious traditions as well as theistic ones. This also relates to reallife inclusivity. Not all players come from theistic cultures, nor are especially interested in theism.

The Cleric class works better when more inclusive. This likewise helps the class be more versatile for different kinds of D&D settings.

Setting including cosmology belongs in the DMs Guide. Not the Cleric class.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> To me the flavor matters, in some ways more than the mechanics. I value mechanics and flavor equally.
> 
> I need the flavor of the Cleric class description to welcome nontheistic religious traditions as well as theistic ones. This also relates to reallife inclusivity. Not all players come from theistic cultures, nor are especially interested in theism.
> 
> ...



I don't agree cause of the Cleric's name. Cleric's are people of faith. And the default Cosmology should be part of the PHB.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> I don't agree cause of the Cleric's name. Cleric's are people of faith.



Not all religions are "faiths".

"Faith" is a Christian-centric ethnocentrism.



The term "cleric" is inclusive. It can refer to any kind of official function for any kind of sacred tradition.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Not all religions are "faiths".
> 
> "Faith" is a Christian-centric ethnocentrism.



A system of religious belief. Not necessarily Christian.

"Faith: strong belief in a god or in the doctrines of a religion"

You can have faith in any religion or spiritual matter.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> A system of religious belief. Not necessarily Christian.
> 
> "Faith: strong belief in a god or in the doctrines of a religion"



"Belief" is a Christian-centric ethnocentrism.

Many religions have zero "god" and zero "strong belief" in one.

Not all sacred traditions are "beliefs".

Many sacred traditions are about praxis (conduct) without belief (dogma).

Theism is ethnocentric and noninclusive.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> "Belief" is a Christian-centric ethnocentrism.
> 
> Many religions zero "god" and zero "strong belief" in one.
> 
> ...



You just ignored what I quoted. It even said "or the doctrines of a religion." You can have belief in a religion without a god. Belief just means you accept something is true. 

Not even trying to debate you about the various types of religions. Just saying Clerics are people of faith who whole heartedly believe in their religion.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> You just ignored what I quoted. It even said "or the doctrines of a religion." You can have belief in a religion without a god. Belief just means you accept something is true.
> 
> Not even trying to debate you about the various types of religions. Just saying Clerics are people of faith who whole heartedly believe in their religion.



What you quoted is ethnocentric.

"Faith [= Christianity]:
strong belief [= Christianity]
in a god [= Christianity]
or in the doctrines of a religion"

The word "faith" is noninclusive.



"Clerics" include people without faith and without belief.

These clerics are officiate in a sacred tradition where faith and belief are irrelevant.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> What you quoted is ethnocentric.
> 
> "Faith [= Christianity]:
> strong belief [= Christianianity]
> ...



It is not. Faith is a word that applies to many many religions. I am not Christian, so I feel like you are being very disrespectful about this. I don't like the whole lumping everything together you do.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> It is not. Faith is a word that applies to many many religions. I am not Christian, so I feel like you are being very disrespectful about this. I don't like the whole lumping everything together you do.



Many sacred traditions value faith. Many other sacred traditions dont.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Many sacred traditions value faith. Many other sacred traditions dont.



Sacred Traditions are not the same as Religions. Do you mean spiritual traditions which essentially are?


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> To me the flavor matters, in some ways more than the mechanics. I value mechanics and flavor equally.
> 
> I need the flavor of the Cleric class description to welcome nontheistic religious traditions as well as theistic ones. This also relates to reallife inclusivity. Not all players come from theistic cultures, nor are especially interested in theism.
> 
> ...



This is where I disagree with you.  the 5e cleric has a super thick layer of FR baseline shellacking that makes it difficult to introduce players to settings like eberron & darksun where the baselines with deities are extremely different.  Real life faith shouldn't be imposing on a game, it's about 30some years late for the satanic panic.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.



Depends on what is being talked about. To blanketly ban talking about gods when talking about religion is just as dismissive the other way. 

Anyway when it comes to the release of the new core books. The default Cosmology and Settings, along with their gods should be talked about, as D&D is not an outright generic system, it has it's own lore, and culture about it.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> This is where I disagree with you.  the 5e cleric has a super thick layer of FR baseline shellacking that makes it difficult to introduce players to settings like eberron & darksun where the baselines with deities are extremely different.  Real life faith shouldn't be imposing on a game, it's about 30some years late for the satanic panic.



Changes from the baseline need merely be mentioned with setting books. Eberron is not too different from the base, minus their being no proof of the existence of the gods and anyone can become a cleric of anything so long as they have sufficient faith in the idea.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> To blanketly ban talking about gods when talking about religion is just as dismissive the other way.



The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.

The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.
> 
> The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.



I don't agree and lets leave it at that.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Changes from the baseline need merely be mentioned with setting books. Eberron is not too different from the base, minus their being no proof of the existence of the gods and anyone can become a cleric of anything so long as they have sufficient faith in the idea.



That sounds good in theory, but a gm is lucky if they can get a player to read even a single page of text, expecting a gm to convince players they need to read a setting book is almost trolling the gm.

Eberron deliberately has conflicting accounts on the gods & no good proof either way, the PHB is entirely certain & certain of specifics & presents lots of proof.  Darksun deliberately does not have gods, they may never have existed be in hiding or even be dead, that's an important part of the setting.  "shared multiverse" shouldn't mean "this is how FR & similar settings do it"


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 1, 2022)

Outside or Turn and Destroy Undead, the cleric is any real mechanical ties to gods or religion as a construct.

The cleric class is tied to Divinity. Whatever Divinity on that universe is.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 1, 2022)

So we can talk about religion but not gods, or we can talk about gods but not religion, because either or both may or may not be inclusive.

Well! Sounds about right.

If it made sense you wouldn't need faith now would you?


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 1, 2022)

Here's to hoping they take the cleric back to its Hammer Horror roots.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.



I’m hoping since we’re only getting the one class, they’ll give us multiple subclasses. They did say they plan to playtest 4 subclasses per class.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Here's to hoping they take the cleric back to its Hammer Horror roots.



That’d be pretty dope, now that you mention it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m hoping since we’re only getting the one class, they’ll give us multiple subclasses. They did say they plan to playtest 4 subclasses per class.



I hope that they do give us all 4 subclasses, but the pattern from the Expert Classes UA would suggest that we're just getting the default/main one tomorrow.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I hope that they do give us all 4 subclasses, but the pattern from the Expert Classes UA would suggest that we're just getting the default/main one tomorrow.




Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one). 

Just spitballin'.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.




More than the Cleric in _playtest material_ but probably just the Cleric when it comes to _classes_. (Druid and Paladin were mentioned as "coming later".)


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.



Cleric, and revised Dragonborn and Ardlings are confirmed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some rules glossary tweaks as we have in the last two packets, and maybe some new and/or revised feats. But it definitely sounded like cleric is going to be the only _class_ in this packet, and that it’s going to be smaller than the last two were.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> We are also supposed to get more than just the Cleric.



Yep. The updated Ardling, Dragonborn, and something "secret" that we know of so far.

Edit: @Charlaquin ninja'd me.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Cleric, and revised Dragonborn and Ardlings are confirmed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some rules glossary tweaks as we have in the last two packets, and maybe some new and/or revised feats. But it definitely sounded like cleric is going to be the only _class_ in this packet, and that it’s going to be smaller than the last two were.




I think he said that we'd get a new definition for D20 Tests (one that he expects to get better feedback, for whatever reason).


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one).
> 
> Just spitballin'.



I hope so! I think for cleric and wizard both, it makes a lot of sense for Domain and school specialization to be separate choices from subclass. Especially if they stick with subclasses coming at 3rd level across the board.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

Oh, and maybe something about Bastions, if we're lucky?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one).
> 
> Just spitballin'.



My guess is that they'll change up Channel Divinity a bit in order to unite a mechanic throughout the Priest class category a bit. And codify what Divine Intervention can do, because it's a "Mother, May I" mechanic.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think he said that we'd get a new definition for D20 Tests (one that he expects to get better feedback, for whatever reason).



Is that what he said? I thought that he said that they purposefully put out two different versions of it already in order to gather contrasting feedback. Both of the first UAs had different versions of the d20 Tests in them. I don't think he said that the new one would have another version. They're probably waiting until they read all the feedback from the second playtest to do another version.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Oh, and maybe something about Bastions, if we're lucky?



He said that was coming "next year", so it's not in this next playtest. Hopefully it's in January's, though.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.
> 
> The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.



Why?

many D&D settings have gods, now the FR is kind of default setting with loads of them.

if any setting has no gods, it can have a footnote about how clerics there gain their power.


Default cleric should be around gods and any deviations from it should be mentioned and explained with lore and mechanics in their respective setting books.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 1, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.
> 
> I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.



My one complaint with the Cleric was how certain subclasses were forced into melee or spellcasting. With some domains it made more sense, but with others it could have gone either way.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.



I understand what you're saying. But...

Religion is a personal preference and has deep meaning to those who follow one. There are also very many atheists in the world. I don't think attempting to apply anyone's real world religious views onto a game is a great idea.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 1, 2022)

I want clerics to be a psionic class using their Conviction to repel agents of Darkness: undead, demons, aberrations! 

screw paladins, go back to being fighters on a horse.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I understand what you're saying. But...
> 
> Religion is a personal preference and has deep meaning to those who follow one. There are also very many atheists in the world. I don't think attempting to apply anyone's real world religious views onto a game is a great idea.



Polytheism  is attempting to apply real world religious views onto a game. Mentioning real life gods by name, like Isis and Zeus, isnt a great idea.

A better idea is to make it clear that the player decides whatever the religion is of their own character concept.

The Cleric class description needs flavor text and focus that helps the player choose whatever sacred tradition the cleric concept officiates.

The Cleric description can focus on what kind of function the clergy serves: 
• ceremonial officiate
• sage
• judge
• warrior
• psychic
• oracle
• healer
• shrine caretaker
 etcetera. 

Then let the Setting Guide, DMs Guide, and DM decide what religions are prominent in the setting. It is ok if the player chooses a minority religion for their character concept.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Dec 1, 2022)

Is there a time of day that UA usually drops?


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Polytheism  is attempting to apply real world religious views onto a game. Mentioning real life gods by name, like Isis and Zeus, isnt a great idea.
> 
> A better idea is to make it clear that the player decides whatever the religion is of their own character concept.
> 
> The Cleric class description needs flavor text and focus that helps the player choose whatever sacred tradition the cleric concept officiates.



I don't think that's a road we should be walking down. This is not about inclusivity anymore. There are too many opinions and for some these are deep and personal ideas. I think the best choice here is to say an individual's religious beliefs are that person's choice. Too important to bring that concept into a game.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Is there a time of day that UA usually drops?



It has to be late enough for the Pacific Time Zone to wake up and get work. But it can be any time after that.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 1, 2022)

I'm, like, 64% sure it's been around 1 p.m. EST


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Is there a time of day that UA usually drops?



usually seems after lunch est  at the earliest.  With california being like 4(?) hours behind I'd be surprised if it's earlier


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 1, 2022)

I've been uncomfortable with using real world gods as D&D characters since Deity and Demigods came out (and I've still got my first edition with all the Cthulu stuff in it). The problem is that it sort of implies that some real world gods are fair game because they are just "myth," while others are not. While people should pick and choose whatever religious systems they want at their table, I feel that WotC published material should stay away from real world religions, even largely extinct ones (and I say that as proud person of Scandinavian heritage and a big fan of the Thor films).


----------



## Burnside (Dec 1, 2022)

It's out:

Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond


----------



## Burnside (Dec 1, 2022)

Of note: starting with One D&D, they are officially dropping the term "Race". This isn't something that's being tested; they're definitely moving on from that term.

The new term they are floating is "Species" which imo is a completely lateral move that offers exactly all of the exact same baggage that the term "Race" carries.

You can however give feedback on "Species". "Race" is definitely out, but "Species" isn't necessarily in.

I'm not sure what the best solution here is really. I do think that "race" is misused when it is applied to dividing humans into different groups. However, I actually do think elves and dwarves, etc., qualify as actual different _races_, so I have felt the term race is appropriate for them.

I understand that the term is just too fraught for some folks and maybe it's time to move on. I think "Species" solves exactly nothing in that respect. I guess "Heritage" or "Ancestry" might be a bit better.


----------



## mellored (Dec 1, 2022)

The video.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 1, 2022)

Burnside said:


> Of note: starting with One D&D, they are officially dropping the term "Race". This isn't something that's being tested; they're definitely moving on from that term.



Love!

The term "race" is a problematic buzzword. It is impossible to use the term neutrally, despite a historical era when one did. Today any term is better than this.



Burnside said:


> The new term they are floating is "Species" which imo is a completely lateral move that offers exactly all of the exact same baggage that the term "Race" carries.
> 
> You can however give feedback on "Species". "Race" is definitely out, but "Species" isn't necessarily in.



I see your point.

Even so, "species" communicates exactly what D&D 5e refers to: the biology, distinct from the culture.

Different species can belong to the same culture.

Whence "species" and "background".





Burnside said:


> I'm not sure what the best solution here is really. I do think that "race" is misused when it is applied to dividing humans into different groups. However, I actually do think elves and dwarves, etc., qualify as actual different _races_, so I have felt the term race is appropriate for them.
> 
> I understand that the term is just too fraught for some folks and maybe it's time to move on. I think "Species" solves exactly nothing in that respect. I guess "Heritage" or "Ancestry" might be a bit better.



Heritage makes sense, because various factors contribute to it.

I suppose, the Warforge has an "ancestry" in the sense of ancients and adoptive progeny.


----------



## NotAYakk (Dec 1, 2022)

I like the dual-specialization trick they pulled here.  It is like the Warlock.

You have your Subclass, and then another specialization.

Scaling of channel divinity is well done.  Turn undead is tweaked, with a L 5 auto scaling feature making it possible to turn them to dust.

Life domain is still too healing focused; they could have had at least 1 feature that wasn't "heal more HP".  As an example, "when you cast a spell with a spell slot that restores HP to a creature, that creature gains advantage on the next d20 test they do before the end of their next turn".  This matches "Life" domain in that it is tied to healing, but instead of being "more faster HP" it actually ends fights faster.

Not sure if the 3 Holy Orders are balanced.  And with you getting 2 of them by the end of T2, maybe we need more than 3.


----------



## Burnside (Dec 1, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> I like the dual-specialization trick they pulled here.  It is like the Warlock.
> 
> You have your Subclass, and then another specialization.




This is another One D&D thing that reminds me of LevelUp A5E, where clerics have a similar deal (A5E's version is actually more interesting imo).


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2022)

On the subject of the cleric:

Channel Divinity is now prof times per long rest instead of once per short rest. If they're going to keep short rests at one hour (and maybe even if not), I approve of this change.
I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.
As expected, domain is now chosen at 3rd level. This is a bit of a flavor/mechanic mismatch, but there's nothing stopping you from declaring yourself a cleric of Pelor (or whoever) at level 1, it just has no mechanical impact until 3rd.
Smite Undead is a core feature. Dunno about that. There's no real justification for Turn Undead being a core cleric feature except D&D tradition, do we need to double down on it?
The "weapons cleric" and "magic cleric" 8th-level domain features (bonus damage on weapon strikes or bonus damage on cantrips) have now been merged into a single ability at 7th level, which gives you both. Sensible and straightforward.
The sample Life Domain looks pretty much the same as the one we already had: All healing, all the time. In fact, I think the features are _literally _the same, except for the "weapons cleric" benefits (heavy armor proficiency, bonus weapon damage) which have been moved to the core class. I do question whether they really need another healing option for Channel Divinity when the core class already gives you one. Granted, the Life Domain one is better, but surely they could come up with something a bit more interesting?
Overall, no dramatic changes but a lot of modest upgrades. I'm still not a fan of the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, but at least the cleric doesn't make you check spell schools; you just get all divine spells, full stop.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 1, 2022)

Burnside said:


> Of note: starting with One D&D, they are officially dropping the term "Race". This isn't something that's being tested; they're definitely moving on from that term.
> 
> The new term they are floating is "Species" which imo is a completely lateral move that offers exactly all of the exact same baggage that the term "Race" carries.
> 
> ...



I actually prefer species to both heritage and ancestry. Species has a biological meaning and, as far as I know, isn't a fraught term, unlike race. Heritage and ancestry make me think of culture and ethnicity respectively.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2022)

Other stuff:

Wow, they really changed the Goliath. It's basically now the equivalent of the tiefling, but you're descended from giants instead of fiends. You get an ability themed to one of the giant types, and at 5th level you can grow to Large size for 10 minutes once a day. I expect fans of the old Goliath won't be pleased; personally, however, I had no interest in the old Goliath and _love_ the new version. I might actually play one sometime.
_Banishment_ can no longer be used to send people home when traveling outside your own plane. Pity, I kind of liked that hidden feature. Also, you can perma-banish fiends and the like even if you _are_ on their home plane. Again, not sure I like that.
_Resistance_ gets the _guidance_ treatment, which it needed. I approve.
_Spiritual weapon_ now requires concentration. Which makes sense, it was kind of busted before, but cleric players will be sad.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 1, 2022)

The Smite Spells are still on the Divine List


----------



## Delazar (Dec 1, 2022)

Divine Intervention still sucks. Nothing is worse than doing just nothing on your turn.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> On the subject of the cleric:
> 
> Channel Divinity is now prof times per long rest instead of once per short rest. If they're going to keep short rests at one hour (and maybe even if not), I approve of this change.
> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.
> ...



I agree about Turn Undead.  I'm largely a traditionalist, but even i don't think every cleric needs that power.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Smite Undead is a core feature. Dunno about that. There's no real justification for Turn Undead being a core cleric feature except D&D tradition, do we need to double down on it?



Yeah, that one's weird to me too.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Delazar said:


> Divine Intervention still sucks. Nothing is worse than doing just nothing on your turn.



It’s largely an out of combat feature.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> On the subject of the cleric:
> 
> Channel Divinity is now prof times per long rest instead of once per short rest. If they're going to keep short rests at one hour (and maybe even if not), I approve of this change.
> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.



I can, for sure, given the less nebulous nature of using those skills with the new proposed Study Action. 


Dausuul said:


> As expected, domain is now chosen at 3rd level. This is a bit of a flavor/mechanic mismatch, but there's nothing stopping you from declaring yourself a cleric of Pelor (or whoever) at level 1, it just has no mechanical impact until 3rd.



You generally should, in fact. 


Dausuul said:


> Smite Undead is a core feature. Dunno about that. There's no real justification for Turn Undead being a core cleric feature except D&D tradition, do we need to double down on it?



Yeah it’s odd. Should work on fiends as well, at least. 


Dausuul said:


> The "weapons cleric" and "magic cleric" 8th-level domain features (bonus damage on weapon strikes or bonus damage on cantrips) have now been merged into a single ability at 7th level, which gives you both. Sensible and straightforward.
> The sample Life Domain looks pretty much the same as the one we already had: All healing, all the time. In fact, I think the features are _literally _the same, except for the "weapons cleric" benefits (heavy armor proficiency, bonus weapon damage) which have been moved to the core class. I do question whether they really need another healing option for Channel Divinity when the core class already gives you one. Granted, the Life Domain one is better, but surely they could come up with something a bit more interesting?



Any feature they put there was always gonna be healing, to be fair. That’s the point of the domain. 


Dausuul said:


> Overall, no dramatic changes but a lot of modest upgrades. I'm still not a fan of the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, but at least the cleric doesn't make you check spell schools; you just get all divine spells, full stop.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Overall, I kinda like this cleric. It can be a bit closer to feeling like a priest, now.

I really like the zap or heal channel divinity, holy orders, but smite undead… smite undead feels like a Paladin feature.

Also, if they want a van helsing class, make that. Don’t combine it with the priest concept.


----------



## Blue (Dec 1, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.



Conversely, I felt that every cleric stuck by a couple of stand-out spells.  I like the cleric differentiation, but I hope they give them mechanical reason to use different spells for different subclasses.  And not just nerfing the best-in-class spells like they did with Spiritual Weapon, since that just leaves a new Best-in-Class.


----------



## Burnside (Dec 1, 2022)

Blue said:


> Conversely, I felt that every cleric stuck by a couple of stand-out spells.  I like the cleric differentiation, but I hope they give them mechanical reason to use different spells for different subclasses.  And not just nerfing the best-in-class spells like they did with Spiritual Weapon, since that just leaves a new Best-in-Class.




I agree. While there are a ton of subclasses, for most of them it is hard to mechanically justify not defaulting to the usual spiritual weapons/spirit guardians combo for most combats.


----------



## Burnside (Dec 1, 2022)

For the cleric, number of spells they can prep also got a pretty dramatic nerf, which again is going to push players to only ever prep those best-in-class spells.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Overall, I kinda like this cleric. It can be a bit closer to feeling like a priest, now.
> 
> I really like the zap or heal channel divinity, holy orders, but smite undead… smite undead feels like a Paladin feature.
> 
> Also, if they want a van helsing class, make that. Don’t combine it with the priest concept.



Smite Undead is just the Upgrade to Turn Undead.


----------



## Azzy (Dec 1, 2022)

NotAYakk said:


> Not sure if the 3 Holy Orders are balanced.  And with you getting 2 of them by the end of T2, maybe we need more than 3.



I’m not really on board with clerics gaining two Holy Orders—especially when there are only three of them. A cleric should only ever have one (except in the case of a subclass that has a feature to give them a second).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 1, 2022)

Blue said:


> Conversely, I felt that every cleric stuck by a couple of stand-out spells.  I like the cleric differentiation, but I hope they give them mechanical reason to use different spells for different subclasses.  And not just nerfing the best-in-class spells like they did with Spiritual Weapon, since that just leaves a new Best-in-Class.



That depends a lot on the gap between the best-in-class and the best of the rest.  Spiritual weapon was well ahead of the curve thanks to not being concentration.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Smite Undead is just the Upgrade to Turn Undead.



I’m…aware?


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> On the subject of the cleric:
> 
> Channel Divinity is now prof times per long rest instead of once per short rest. If they're going to keep short rests at one hour (and maybe even if not), I approve of this change.
> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.
> ...



Scholars need a domain specific benefit that the other two don't get.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 1, 2022)

-I wonder if we'll potentially see new Holy Orders for the Cleric, I wonder what some of those concepts might be.
-For the life cleric even though I know that Supreme Healing and Disciple of Life do stack, I feel they need to explicitly state that they do.
-I still don't like that all Clerics get Turn Undead, but I've been against that since 2e
-I like this version of the Ardling better now that it's more focused
-I feel the Climber Ardling might be really appealing to the Monk, but I feel the Monk is probably going to get their own in class method of adding Prof bonus to unarmed damage.
-They've fixed their breath weapon and made it a lot closer to Fizban's, that was the main thing I was opposed to about the previous version
-I've always felt that Dragonborn should get some method of flying, it's good they've added it to this "universal" one.
-So I notice Goliath's Powerful Build has advantage to ending grapples, I'm guessing the Orc's Powerful Build will match that.
-I like the different Giant ancestries for the Goliath, which makes me suspect that the Goliath is really there for that Giant-themed Book instead.
-Influence action is better and clearer now. I don't like character interaction to be too gamified, so at least it's smaller in scope so that it doesn't cover everything.
-I actually like this version of Guidance better than the previous one, only being able to be affected once per long rest made the previous one feel too weak.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> He said that was coming "next year", so it's not in this next playtest. Hopefully it's in January's, though.



I figured I was being over-eager there.


----------



## Azzy (Dec 1, 2022)

I still don't like the Ardling. Either give us the existing Aasimar or a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species. Stop trying to merge the two.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I can, for sure, given the less nebulous nature of using those skills with the new proposed Study Action.



The Study Action clarifies which knowledge skills apply to what, and emphasizes that using a knowledge skill costs an action. But that's all. The actual benefits remain incredibly nebulous;
it doesn't give any sort of guidelines for what sorts of "important information" can be obtained, or the DC of the check, or anything. The value of this benefit is entirely DM-dependent, which is one of the things they say they're trying to move away from.

Contrast the Hunter's Lore feature (ranger subclass) from the last playtest packet, which lays out exactly what information you get.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 1, 2022)

I like the ardling, but I think it would help to have a non-divine beast "species" in there to provide contrast. Alternatively, create a more build-your-own beast species that gives you options that include the divine element while also offering other ones. Maybe literally give them a choice between a mundane ability (maybe second head-specific option?), and then Arcane, Primal, or Divine versions of the flexible cantrip.

Kind of odd that the damage boost to unarmed attacks doesn't convert the damage to Slashing, too. Maybe let the player choose damage type at creation time.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 1, 2022)

Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never. 

I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.


----------



## mellored (Dec 1, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I still don't like the Ardling. Either give us the existing Aasimar or a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species. Stop trying to merge the two.



Agreed.
Just make the Ardling fey.


----------



## mellored (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.



It's basically a down time resurrection spell.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 1, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I’m not really on board with clerics gaining two Holy Orders—especially when there are only three of them. A cleric should only ever have one (except in the case of a subclass that has a feature to give them a second).



The higher level option should enhance the holy order you chose.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The Smite Spells are still on the Divine List



Should they not be?


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.



Note that the scholar not only gets two knowledge proficiencies, they can also add their Wis mod to checks with those proficiencies. That’s in addition to their Int mod. Depending on your stat spread, that’s potentially better than expertise. True, it is the only option of the three that doesn’t grant a combat benefit, but I do like that this fixes the problem of the party wizard having a better religion check than the cleric simply from having high Int.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.
> 
> I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.



It should just be automatic, the 18th level capstone, and basically equivalent to wish.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I do like that this fixes the problem of the party wizard having a better religion check than the cleric simply from having high Int.



I quite agree, but IMO that should be a thing _all_ clerics get. And druids should have a similar feature for Nature.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 1, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> It should just be automatic, the 18th level capstone, and basically equivalent to wish.




Th capstone is great... the level 11 ability is just a ribbon.

I think, t should  be "roll under 3 times your level." This would go from 1/3 chance to 1/2 until it finally becomes automatic.
Or it should be roll under 30 and it increases by 10 at the 2 currently dead levels.
That would make it feel like taking a chance, not wasting a round.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 1, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Th capstone is great... the level 11 ability is just a ribbon.



No its way stronger than a ribbon if you play in games with downtime. Take a month off, have 4 chances to basically cast wish...that's not nothing. Its a stupidly random ability....but its not nothing.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 1, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Th capstone is great... the level 11 ability is just a ribbon.
> 
> I think, t should  be "roll under 3 times your level." This would go from 1/3 chance to 1/2 until it finally becomes automatic.
> Or it should be roll under 30 and it increases by 10 at the 2 currently dead levels.
> That would make it feel like taking a chance, not wasting a round.



Or d20 Test under proficiency bonus. Odds are a little better than the d100 under level but main thing is it allows Inspiration, Guidance etc to interact with it


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.
> 
> I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.



No leave it as is, unlike other mother may I things, this is totally in the lap of the DM. The other mother may I's put the onus on the player to ask permission to do something. This is on the DM to think of something cool


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 1, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> No leave it as is, unlike other mother may I things, this is totally in the lap of the DM. The other mother may I's put the onus on the player to ask permission to do something. This is on the DM to think of something cool



No I kind of agree with @FitzTheRuke.  Divine intervention is one of those things that sound great in theory & on occasion even generate cool stories.  The important part often overlooked is the constant "I want to try divine intervention" every session or two just to make an attempt where everyone sits on pins & needles waiting to see if bob gets a thing he's almost certain to not get.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 1, 2022)

The randomness of Divine Intervention feels like it would be better served by a random spell slot equivalent.

Oh no I only got a 3rd level boon or even oh wow I got a level 12 boon because it's a flipping deity.


----------



## Tutara (Dec 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.
> 
> I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.




This absolutely baffled me, too. I like fluffy, open-ended abilities, but even I am not a fan of the current Divine Intervention and it seems pretty much the same, despite the whole 'Let's not make abilities GM dependent' conversation. I had a Cleric player in a campaign who managed to roll low enough to trigger it at level 11, and when it happened we both sat there, non-plussed. What happens? Deus ex Machina? The effect of *any *cleric spell seems a bit much when all the fighter gets is another attack every round.

In some systems, this wouldn't be a problem. But D&D is so tightly coiled around the idea of 'pull this trigger, get this effect' that the sudden permissiveness seems really out of place.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 1, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> No its way stronger than a ribbon if you play in games with downtime. Take a month off, have 4 chances to basically cast wish...that's not nothing. Its a stupidly random ability....but its not nothing.




Ok. You are right. It is a ribbon in actual play and stupidly broken outside.

So it should have a real penalty attached. Probably: if the intervention granted is a spell with a costly material component, you need to make up for it.
Also, the downtime of the spell could be at least 2d6 days, but not before you go on a quest on behalf of your god...


----------



## DeviousQuail (Dec 1, 2022)

Holy Order is great but as others have said WotC should create a few more since every Cleric will have two of them by level 9.
I'm happy with the interactions between Blindsight, Truesight, Tremorsense, and Invisible after a first pass. Being Invisible won't do much against a creature that can see through your invisibility. Tremorsense doesn't give you the ability to see them though, only know where they are and I'm fine with that.
Light [Weapon Property] has been cleaned up. Perhaps they saw all of my complaints? Now you have to already have a light weapon in each hand to gain the offhand attack benefit, which is better than the shenanigans of the previous UA.
The Jump action is like a special dash action. The distance you cover from the jump doesn't use your movement but you are limited to a distance no greater than your movement speed. I'm just excited for characters with maxed Strength and Expertise to regularly jump over basketball hoops.
As someone playing a Cleric right now I'm going to hold off on that new Spiritual Weapon design until the campaign is over.
I don't have a problem with Divine Intervention. A more strict DM can just limit it to only spell effects from the Divine list and be fine. Or make it take longer than an action to use so that it becomes a mostly out of combat ability.
I'm surprised they want to take the Goliath in that direction. Was making a Giant-kin species not an option?
I like where Guidance and Resistance are going. They aren't as spamable as the 2014 version but the cost of a reaction and limited range are a decent tradeoff for not requiring concentration.
No opportunity attacks on teleportation will cause at least one person at my table grief even though I've always enforced it that way.


----------



## darjr (Dec 1, 2022)

I think divine intervention should have added to it.

“On a failure your god tells you to fix it yourself and gives you your action back”


----------



## Blue (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.



This mirrors my initial thoughts, but on further pondering I'm not sure I agree.  This seems to be the martial/skill-monkey/caster, or as they put it Warriors/Experts/Mages groups.  What makes sense for skill monkey?  Well, adding +WIS to a skill ramps up faster than adding Prof again, so it's better than Expertise which is the hallmark of the Expert group, and it very carefully is _not_ Expertise so you could get that as well.  And that's before the fact that it's adding two proficiencies which also counts as something.  This quite exceeds the skill-monkeyness of the Expert group until they get their second batch of Expertise.  That's quite the haul, and can come up in play with some frequency.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 1, 2022)

Having the Intervention recharge time be based on the slot used would be good, too. Perhaps 1 day +1 day/slot.


----------



## Blue (Dec 1, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The Smite Spells are still on the Divine List



They listed at the beginning of the rules glossary what they changes, and the spell lists were not on there.  That's not somethign they were revising for this iteration, as opposed to they revised it and left the smite spells on.  Give it time.

Though since there are war gods, and since paladins most likely use the divine list, what is the problem with the smite spells being on the list?


----------



## OB1 (Dec 1, 2022)

Just hit me, True Strike could change to the new Guidance methodology and actually be a worthwhile cantrip! 

True Strike - V, Reaction
When a creature you can see within 10' of you misses on an attack roll, they can add 1d4 to the roll, potentially turning a miss into a hit


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 1, 2022)

DeviousQuail said:


> The Jump action is like a special dash action. The distance you cover from the jump doesn't use your movement but you are limited to a distance no greater than your movement speed. I'm just excited for characters with maxed Strength and Expertise to regularly jump over basketball hoops.



It however, also means that you can no longer jump as part of your regular movement, which severely limits its usefulness in combat.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 1, 2022)

I am absolutely going to criticize Jump requiring an action for as long as I have an opportunity to do so in the surveys.


----------



## Amrûnril (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I quite agree, but IMO that should be a thing _all_ clerics get. And druids should have a similar feature for Nature.



I'm not sure of this. I can imagine plenty of concepts for divinely inspired/powered adventures who don't actually know very much about religious theory/doctrine.



darjr said:


> I think divine intervention should have added to it.
> 
> “On a failure your god tells you to fix it yourself and gives you your action back”



Something along these lines would make Divine Intervention a lot more attractive in emergency situations, which thematically seem like the scenario this feature was designed for.


----------



## WarDriveWorley (Dec 1, 2022)

I'm going to focus on Aid here a bit. 

I don't like the change to THP to be frank for the following reasons. Also slight disclaimer, I know that some of the issues I have with it are because of specific rules I use at my table and your table may vary. That's fine. I just want to explain in case my niche case becomes a non-niche case. 


Since I've talked about my rules I'll start with those. I use the wound system that Studio Agate put out in their FateForge system. the link brings you to the free player's guide which details this, but as a quick explanation, a character's wound threshold is based on the character's maximum HP total. THP don't add to this. Raising the wound threshold on a character means they're less likely to be incapacitated by a good hit in combat. As a note wounds have created some interesting combat dynamics to the point some characters that aren't really HP oriented (a blaster wizard and an archer ranger) both seriously debated on taking the tough feat. I know I can houserule THP to also affect the wound threshold, but given the mercurial nature of THP it can be somewhat confusing to track. 
Duration: Currently Aid is a "fire and forget" buff. You cast it and it lasts 8 hours with no concentration. If you take damage healing will replenish back up to your new max. The new one is also fire and forget, but it's instantaneous. Once you use those THP they're gone till Aid is cast again. I find this to be a bit of a spell tax in it's "updated" form. 
Stacking: So one of my players is playing a Paladin and will drop heroism on himself. Current rules means that heroism and aid stack. Unless something changes with how THP are handled in DND1 they wouldn't under the updated Aid. That also means that other THP spells like Barkskin either make Aid redundant or situational and I think that ways of getting THP are too prevalent in 5E to add just another one. 

Someone had mentioned that this may help ease record keeping, but I don't agree. My group consists of 6 players and myself. 2 of them are brand new (first ever campaign) and none of them have had any issues tracking Aid being cast on them. Now I know that that's not indicative of all players and YTMV,  but I feel it's still worth mentioning. 

Now that said I do like the increase in the amount of targets, but conversely think this may be to offset the lack of "permanent" hp. 

So yeah I'm definitely not a fan of how it works now.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 1, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> I am absolutely going to criticize Jump requiring an action for as long as I have an opportunity to do so in the surveys.



Might they be keeping it in reserve as a martial ability?  Monks, fighters, and barbarians all have jump related class features in one form or another.  The Athlete feat could be given design space to improve.  Subclasses such as the acrobat could also do something.  If jumping is to be strength or dexterity related, it becomes far easier for say a dextrous wizard to be engaging is combat acrobatics compared to a fighter.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 1, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Might they be keeping it in reserve as a martial ability?  Monks, fighters, and barbarians all have jump related class features in one form or another.  The Athlete feat coould be given design space to improve.  Subclasses such as the acrobat could also do something.  If jumping is to be strength or dexterity related, it becomes far easier for say a dextrous wizard to be engaging is combat acrobatics compared to a fighter.



That would help. My use case is my Satyr paladin who probably jumps at least twice in any combat where there is height to play with. He does have the Athlete feat, so that would lessen the sting of the change, for sure.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Should they not be?



It's awfully close to the design space of the paladin.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I'm not sure of this. I can imagine plenty of concepts for divinely inspired/powered adventures who don't actually know very much about religious theory/doctrine.



In that case, you don't put proficiency into Religion, and you just get your Wis bonus. (And your Int bonus, if you have one, which as a cleric you probably don't.)

Or you play one of the multitude of divinely-powered options that aren't clerics; paladin, Celestial-pact warlock, Divine Soul sorcerer, etc.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> The Study Action clarifies which knowledge skills apply to what, and emphasizes that using a knowledge skill costs an action. But that's all. The actual benefits remain incredibly nebulous;
> it doesn't give any sort of guidelines for what sorts of "important information" can be obtained, or the DC of the check, or anything. The value of this benefit is entirely DM-dependent, which is one of the things they say they're trying to move away from.
> 
> Contrast the Hunter's Lore feature (ranger subclass) from the last playtest packet, which lays out exactly what information you get.



Hunters Lore is a class feature, the Study Action is a skill use. Skills are still more open ended than most class features. Getting essentially expertise in two skills is in line with other low level “choose a focus” class features, and being limited to one type of skill keeps it from being stronger than the other two options. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.
> 
> I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.



Nah. The thing to remember is, they aren’t obligated to make every statement of general goals, preference, or or otherwise into an axiom. If they want to make most features non MMI, with a few here and there that break the mold, they can do that. 


Stalker0 said:


> It however, also means that you can no longer jump as part of your regular movement, which severely limits its usefulness in combat.



Yeah this is why I am going to again tell them that basic skill use should be as part of an action, using movement, and not an action.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah this is why I am going to again tell them that basic skill use should be as part of an action, using movement, and not an action.



Why part of movement?

I’d much rather they just leave it up to the DM when skill use requires an action and of what kind. If there _has to_ be a default, I guess make it a bonus action, but this is definitely one place where I think leaving it to DM discretion is the best move.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Why part of movement?
> 
> I’d much rather they just leave it up to the DM when skill use requires an action and of what kind. If there _has to_ be a default, I guess make it a bonus action, but this is definitely one place where I think leaving it to DM discretion is the best move.



But we know they plan on having a default, because that is what they’ve been showing. 

Part of movement is better IMO because it’s sensible that you’re just using movement, and that you’d be able to do 3 short jumps using up all your movement in the same general time as running around the same distance. 

If more of a cost is needed, and imo it isn’t, then make special movement use 5ft of movement to initiate, and then whatever movement you subsequently use.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 2, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But we know they plan on having a default, because that is what they’ve been showing.
> 
> Part of movement is better IMO because it’s sensible that you’re just using movement, and that you’d be able to do 3 short jumps using up all your movement in the same general time as running around the same distance.
> 
> If more of a cost is needed, and imo it isn’t, then make special movement use 5ft of movement to initiate, and then whatever movement you subsequently use.



Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it would _use_ your movement.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 2, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> In that case, you don't put proficiency into Religion, and you just get your Wis bonus. (And your Int bonus, if you have one, which as a cleric you probably don't.)
> 
> Or you play one of the multitude of divinely-powered options that aren't clerics; paladin, Celestial-pact warlock, Divine Soul sorcerer, etc.



Is it might be shocking to suggest but there might be priests and druids who know more about nature because they are also intelligent? Or do only stupid people become scholars? 

I feel that at higher levels expertise starts to have echoes of 3e where players without expertise just can't be bothered to roll.  I'm not sure how I feel about layering additional large bonus stacking into the mix.  Maybe if they only added half proficiency/ability rounded up it might stack up better? 

I'm also in the camp where proficiency and relevant ability score and DC are circumstance dependent.  A barbarian smashing someone into a wall is using strength to intimidate.  A druid recalling something about their home turf might get a reduced DC, a Wisdom check, or advantage.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> They did say they plan to playtest 4 subclasses per class.



Did they? I know they said 48 subclasses, but I am concerned there will be 10 wizards in there.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 2, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Did they? I know they said 48 subclasses, but I am concerned there will be 10 wizards in there.



Yep, they did. They specifically mentioned 4 subclasses per class.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 2, 2022)




----------



## SkidAce (Dec 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Th capstone is great... the level 11 ability is just a ribbon.
> 
> I think, t should  be "roll under 3 times your level." This would go from 1/3 chance to 1/2 until it finally becomes automatic.
> Or it should be roll under 30 and it increases by 10 at the 2 currently dead levels.
> That would make it feel like taking a chance, not wasting a round.



Back in the day we would let anyone do a "god call" of 2% per level.  Clerics got 5% per level.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 2, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I still don't like the Ardling. Either give us the existing Aasimar or a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species. Stop trying to merge the two.



The Ardling could become some sort of nature themed animal people, give them primal spells instead of divine and break the celestial link. It'd make it more interesting in my opinion, assuming they come up with some lore for the race that can help cement them in a setting.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 2, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.
> 
> I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.



I think that too, I completely removed it from my cleric rebuild and replaced it with a domain related feature. I feel like divine intervention should be a completely different system that any class can interact with, if the DM wants to include it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it would _use_ your movement.



Makes sense. Jump specifically probably would, by default, otherwise use the jump action which is a special form of Dash. 

Basically the stuff you don’t have to roll for, can be done with movement or as part of moving, but wouldn’t take up extra movement. If you need to tumble 15 ft, you use 15ft of movement doing that. 

Which is a lot like 4e’s move actions, just more fluid. 

Other stuff that doesn’t involve moving might be use an object, bonus, or action, depending on what makes sense, but I’d want a clear baseline that you can do a very basic easy skill thing as part of moving, or taking your action, as long as it reasonably could be considered part of that action in the fiction.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 2, 2022)

Tutara said:


> This absolutely baffled me, too. I like fluffy, open-ended abilities, but even I am not a fan of the current Divine Intervention and it seems pretty much the same, despite the whole 'Let's not make abilities GM dependent' conversation. I had a Cleric player in a campaign who managed to roll low enough to trigger it at level 11, and when it happened we both sat there, non-plussed. What happens? Deus ex Machina? The effect of *any *cleric spell seems a bit much when all the fighter gets is another attack every round.
> 
> In some systems, this wouldn't be a problem. But D&D is so tightly coiled around the idea of 'pull this trigger, get this effect' that the sudden permissiveness seems really out of place.



So the party was chasing an arcanloth that was in humanoid cat form and impersonating the goddess Sharess/Bast.  They narrowed down the lair's location at a brothel in the world's version of Las Vegas.

They knew that some fiends could teleport, or even astral project, so the cleric of Anubis did a Divine Intervention check and made the percentage.

I asked them what they were praying for, they said "We know the creature is in this building, I'm asking Anubis to lock this place down, so they cant teleport, project, nothing..."  We agreed that it would be like that spell (forbiddance??) or something, and absolutely no travel of any type, physical or mental would be able to leave the building.

They cornered the creature, and slew it.  I described it as taunting them with its final words, and promising revenge when it returned from its home plane....

...the cleric said "I made the god call, so I've got Anubis' attention and asked for a total lockdown?"  I said "yah".

"So its soul can't escape to its home plane then"  I said "yaaaaaahhhhhh"

"So its permanently dead then right?"  I said "Crap...YES IT IS!"

And there was much rejoicing....


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 2, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Did they? I know they said 48 subclasses, but I am concerned there will be 10 wizards in there.



In the recent video they did, yeah


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 2, 2022)

You know, if we get squid ardlings, we can have some wacky hijinks in places that know about mind flayers.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 2, 2022)

How do people feel about this:

PHB:  If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.

D&D One: While flying, you fall if you are Incapacitated or Restrained. If you have the Hover trait, you can stay aloft even while Incapacitated or Restrained.

My martial players groan whenever I pit them against flying creatures.  One has a magic Skewering Spear that can restrain once per day and three are level 3+ battlemasters with tripping attacks.  How much fun will it be for martials to deal with flying creatures if magic is needed to bring them down?  I do feel that the prone condition is a bit too easy to fell a flying creature but this feels a bit far the other way.  Grappling a flying creature in mid air would have previously caused a few possibly logic issues, size dependent, but wing span doesn't really factor into that. 

They can use bows but shield wielders feel like they are being punished if it takes an action to equip them.  Is it entitlement or unnecessary punishment.  Drawing a weapon as part of the attach action in addition to having an object interaction will cover off some complaints.  Should equipping a shield be a bonus.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 2, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> How do people feel about this:
> 
> PHB:  If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.
> 
> ...



Not in my opinion.  A character makes a choice on what to wield, and should abide by the inconvenience of that choice if the situation isn't optimal.


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.



The 5e version was.  This says that an acceptable response is any spell on their spell list.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 3, 2022)

Blue said:


> The 5e version was.  This says that an acceptable response is any spell on their spell list.



Gonna be a sad player when the DM just has the deity give their character _guidance_ or something.


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 3, 2022)

Blue said:


> The 5e version was.  This says that an acceptable response is any spell on their spell list.



That's not a change, the 5e version also says this


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I feel that at higher levels expertise starts to have echoes of 3e where players without expertise just can't be bothered to roll.



That shouldn't happen by the rules.  Unlike other editions of D&D, there are set DCs - they aren't level dependent.  With bounded accuracy the modifiers are kept close enough that this works.  So characters with reasonable rolls will still have a decent chance even if characters with expertise will have a good chance.

If the DM is arbitrarily increasing DCs they have either houseruled it, so it's outside the scope of this discussion, they are ignorant of the rule - also outside this discussion.


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Gonna be a sad player when the DM just has the deity give their character _guidance_ or something.



If a retroactive Guidance (since it's an action to Divine Inspiration, it has to be retroactive already) was what was needed to turn that failed check that was critical enough the cleric was asking for divine intervention into a successful one, that's a fine use for me.

It says the Cleric describes the assistance requested - asking to protect your allies from the blue dragon's lightning wouldn't result in a Guidance spell.  So if Guidance comes up, it's because it's will provide the assistance requested.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 3, 2022)

Blue said:


> That shouldn't happen by the rules.  Unlike other editions of D&D, there are set DCs - they aren't level dependent.  With bounded accuracy the modifiers are kept close enough that this works.  So characters with reasonable rolls will still have a decent chance even if characters with expertise will have a good chance.
> 
> If the DM is arbitrarily increasing DCs they have either houseruled it, so it's outside the scope of this discussion, they are ignorant of the rule - also outside this discussion.



This assumes that you're doing the same things at level 3 as at level 15. Sure it's always the same DC to pick the lock of the chest in the goblin cave and always the same DC to pick the lock to the treasury - but if the level 3 PCs are breaking into the treasury something weird has happened and if the level 15 PCs are cleaning out basic goblin camps again it's ... unusual.


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2022)

Back in AD&D 2nd I played a many years with a DM who had an elaborate God Shot system all characters could use.  When you called out to a god you rolled %, with a bonus to the roll based on how cool and appropriate your plea was.  For the god to hear you needed to roll % lower than that.  For your god to speak, you needed to roll % lower than that.  (And if you were a cleric of that god, them speaking could be them casting one your your prepared spells.)  If you wanted the god to Act you needed to roll below that - this could basically be any cleric spell, or something similar.  If you wanted your god to Send (like an archon) instead, you could roll under THAT roll.  And finally, if you wanted your god to APPEAR, roll under that.  I only saw that once in a decade of playing.

Each level had corresponding greater penalties to future God Shots.  If they spoke I think it was around -10/15% and increased sharply from there.  And you could do things like tithe 10% of your take from an adventure to get a +1% to offset those penalties -- or to position yourself for a future God Shot which ended up becoming a major gold drain in the campaigns he ran.

It was possible to call out to god that was not your own, but doing so was basically either (a) you're doing something directly to help that god/a cleric/paladin of that god, or (b) you're ready to forsake your god and start worshiping whomever you called out to.


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> This assumes that you're doing the same things at level 3 as at level 15. Sure it's always the same DC to pick the lock of the chest in the goblin cave and always the same DC to pick the lock to the treasury - but if the level 3 PCs are breaking into the treasury something weird has happened and if the level 15 PCs are cleaning out basic goblin camps again it's ... unusual.



And during that time your proficiency has increased, your ability scores have increased, and you have kept pace because the DCs didn't increase faster than that.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 3, 2022)

Blue said:


> That shouldn't happen by the rules.  Unlike other editions of D&D, there are set DCs - they aren't level dependent.  With bounded accuracy the modifiers are kept close enough that this works.  So characters with reasonable rolls will still have a decent chance even if characters with expertise will have a good chance.
> 
> If the DM is arbitrarily increasing DCs they have either houseruled it, so it's outside the scope of this discussion, they are ignorant of the rule - also outside this discussion.



No.  The gm need not bump the DC to encounter the 3.5 problems that bounded accuracy was intended to fix.  Stock RAW PHB DMG  only is enough. Back then you had a situation where some classes vrs some challenges (ie full 1/1 BaB ones  & monster ACs became impossible to hit for others (ie fractional BaB ones) if the first set had so much as a _chance_ of missing...  The second part of that was _in addition_ if the second group was simply capable of hitting the AC/DC/etc the first group was almost incapable of failure.


5e is designed with all of the DCs set for no expertise & generally for lower level players with lower proficiency bonuses. A character with expertise blows past bounded accuracy both by advancing in levels beyond the narrow band bounded accuracy _and_ by adding double the bonus that is already certain to exceed the math's expectations before getting doubled.

.. Bounded  accuracy means that things like expertise and static DCs not linked to levels *can't" exist or that players can't level and all DCs assume expertise


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No.  The gm need not bump the DC to encounter the 3.5 problems that bounded accuracy was intended to fix.  Stock RAW PHB DMG  only is enough. Back then you had a situation where some classes vrs some challenges (ie full 1/1 BaB ones  & monster ACs became impossible to hit for others (ie fractional BaB ones) if the first set had so much as a _chance_ of missing...  The second part of that was _in addition_ if the second group was simply capable of hitting the AC/DC/etc the first group was almost incapable of failure.
> 
> 
> 5e is designed with all of the DCs set for no expertise & generally for lower level players with lower proficiency bonuses. A character with expertise blows past bounded accuracy both by advancing in levels beyond the narrow band bounded accuracy _and_ by adding double the bonus that is already certain to exceed the math's expectations before getting doubled.
> ...



I have had one player take expertise in perception so they have +14 at 15th level, which then becomes +15 to +19 with Guidance, usually rolled with advantage. 

Reigning in expertise to half proficiency would bring that down to +11 and making Guidance grant advantage doesn't stack with the racial advantage, so bounded accuracy is back in the room.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 4, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I have had one player take expertise in perception so they have +14 at 15th level, which then becomes +15 to +19 with Guidance, usually rolled with advantage.
> 
> Reigning in expertise to half proficiency would bring that down to +11 and making Guidance grant advantage doesn't stack with the racial advantage, so bounded accuracy is back in the room.



Making expertise raise the floor& average on the d20 by changing 1d20 to 3d6 would make a huge difference in feel without raising the cap at all. 

I don't remember what they did for it but I've seen a cleric & wizard both get expertise in perception & investigate respectively, they straight up had d20+17 before guidance or "and I help, that gives you advantage" advantage.

edit:  Yes those two were in the same group same game


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Making expertise raise the floor& average on the d20 by changing 1d20 to 3d6 would make a huge difference in feel without raising the cap at all.
> 
> I don't remember what they did for it but I've seen a cleric & wizard both get expertise in perception & investigate respectively, they straight up had d20+17 before guidance or "and I help, that gives you advantage" advantage.
> 
> edit:  Yes those two were in the same group same game



One other option is that expertise replaces your ability score bonus rather than stacking so it's more useful in abilities where you don't have a high stat.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.
> 
> I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? *If it's just one *(light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.



One D&D strikes again!


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> To blanketly ban talking about gods when talking about religion is just as dismissive the other way.



Right.  The cleric should absolutely talk about gods, and also have a portion talking about being able to be clerics of a philosophy or ideal like prior editions did.  Then let the group figure out which it's going to be.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> On the subject of the cleric:
> 
> I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.



I can.  There are a lot of us who don't base every decision around combat.  I would use the clerical expertise option for some of my characters to be sure..........if I played enough to be able to use my ideas.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

Delazar said:


> Divine Intervention still sucks. Nothing is worse than doing just nothing on your turn.



It's too strong for success to be guaranteed, and it's also mostly a waste to use it in combat.  I view it as being primarily for non-combat aid.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I’m not really on board with clerics gaining two Holy Orders—especially when there are only three of them. A cleric should only ever have one (except in the case of a subclass that has a feature to give them a second).



Yeah.  I don't like it, either.  It feels like something you specialize in, so getting two out of three doesn't sit right.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is _entirely_ up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.



It's not Mother May I since you are not asking the DM's permission to use it.  You get to use it when you declare it to be used, just like any other action.  Then the DM narrates the result, just like any other action.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 4, 2022)

It would be less weird if you got 2 out of 5+ options.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

mellored said:


> It's basically a down time resurrection spell.



It's infinitely more than that.  Why would you A) think it's just resurrection, and B) think that the god will raise the dead as the result?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> Or d20 Test under proficiency bonus. Odds are a little better than the d100 under level but main thing is it allows Inspiration, Guidance etc to interact with it



Why would a cantrip be able to basically mind control a god and make them more likely to respond?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> No I kind of agree with @FitzTheRuke.  Divine intervention is one of those things that sound great in theory & on occasion even generate cool stories.  The important part often overlooked is the constant "I want to try divine intervention" every session or two just to make an attempt where everyone sits on pins & needles waiting to see if bob gets a thing he's almost certain to not get.



I like the low chance for divine intervention from the deity.  Deities are busy people.  That said, there should be a greater chance if you fail of say an angel of some sort being sent to help.  Like "If you roll a number equal to or lower than your Cleric level, the divine power intervenes. If you fail, but roll equal to or lower than 3 times your level, your god sends a divine servant to aid you."


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's awfully close to the design space of the paladin.



I don't really like the idea of the melee battle cleric at all(at least outside of say a war domain).  If you want to play a holy warrior, there's a class for that.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Why would a cantrip be able to basically mind control a god and make them more likely to respond?



 I'm assuming you'd have more luck guiding/inspiring the cleric to ask better, than you would by targeting the god. But I'm now tempted to give it a try next time I have cleric npc - they'd be due some heavy consequences! To be fair, the current "under-level" roll is more about the PC's reputation/seniority that it is about their skill (?proficiency) or talent/ability (?wisdom), so the current design intent may well be the god's roll rather than the cleric's


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 4, 2022)

Just reverse it.  100% chance of success but roll over 100% minus twice your cleric level or be disintegrated by your god for impertinence.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> One D&D strikes again!



And yet, how wrong I was. I have  aclear sense of what they are thinking with this class, even though I didn't expect to based on one subclass (in part since Holy orders appears to integrate at least two subclasses into the main chassis for clerics.)


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I like the low chance for divine intervention from the deity.  *Deities are busy people.*  That said, there should be a greater chance if you fail of say an angel of some sort being sent to help.  Like "If you roll a number equal to or lower than your Cleric level, the divine power intervenes. If you fail, but roll equal to or lower than 3 times your level, your god sends a divine servant to aid you."



So are thge rest of us.  We come together for a couple hours each week to play d&d.  Divine intervention means that someone is going to burn up a couple minutes each session hoping  for a minimal role  just to make the effort.  On the off chance that they actually succeed everyone spends more time staring at each other & someone needs to decide on a result that's both useful & relevant to "It's a new day so I might as well"


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 4, 2022)

Divine Intervention needs to be worded like Limited Wish from the Genie Warlock:

L11: As an action, you can speak your desire to your Genie's Vessel, requesting the effect of one spell that is 6th level or lower and has a casting time of 1 action. The spell can be from any class's spell list, and you don't need to meet the requirements in that spell, including costly components; the spell simply takes effect as part of this action.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish 1d4 long rests.

Capstone: When you use Divine Intervention, you can choose spells from up to 7th or regain a number of Channel Divinity equal to half your proficiency bonus.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> So are thge rest of us.  We come together for a couple hours each week to play d&d.  Divine intervention means that someone is going to burn up a couple minutes each session hoping  for a minimal role  just to make the effort.  On the off chance that they actually succeed everyone spends more time staring at each other & someone needs to decide on a result that's both useful & relevant to "It's a new day so I might as well"



I don't see how success on one ability needs to be guaranteed for you to accomplish that.  Are you going to ask for monsters to automatically miss all saving throws next?  Because lots of caster turns are wasted on successful saves.

What I described where if you fail but get within 3x level with the roll and get a planar servant sent to help is plenty sufficient to make that ability very useful.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't see how success on one ability needs to be guaranteed for you to accomplish that.  Are you going to ask for monsters to automatically miss all saving throws next?  Because lots of caster turns are wasted on successful saves.
> 
> What I described where if you fail but get within 3x level with the roll and get a planar servant sent to help is plenty sufficient to make that ability very useful.



It's not the lack of guaranteed success, it's the claw game type odds with possible near wish level payoffs distorting the pressure to use what is basically a ribbon.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 4, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> No its way stronger than a ribbon if you play in games with downtime. Take a month off, have 4 chances to basically cast wish...that's not nothing. Its a stupidly random ability....but its not nothing.



A solution to this would be to not allow clerics to use Divine Intervention when not in a crisis situation.


tetrasodium said:


> 5e is designed with all of the DCs set for no expertise & generally for lower level players with lower proficiency bonuses. A character with expertise blows past bounded accuracy both by advancing in levels beyond the narrow band bounded accuracy _and_ by adding double the bonus that is already certain to exceed the math's expectations before getting doubled.
> 
> .. Bounded  accuracy means that things like expertise and static DCs not linked to levels *can't" exist or that players can't level and all DCs assume expertise



Expertise only exists on skill checks (or technically ability checks with skill proficiency added). Being able to reliably succeed at those is the opposite of a problem. Hardison doesn't fail when trying to hack a system. Parker doesn't fail when picking a lock.



Pauln6 said:


> Just reverse it.  100% chance of success but roll over 100% minus twice your cleric level or be disintegrated by your god for impertinence.



In RuneQuest, an Initiate of a cult could ask for Divine Intervention, and try to roll d100 equal to or below their Power stat (3d6ish but there were methods of increasing it somewhat). If they succeeded, they would get some really strong effect, but their Power would also be permanently reduced by the d100 roll as you sacrifice part of your soul to your patron deity.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not the lack of guaranteed success, it's the claw game type odds with possible near wish level payoffs distorting the pressure to use what is basically a ribbon.



So what?  Gambling is fun.  If the price of throwing the dice every now and then is losing a turn if you decide to do it in combat, I think its a small one.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's not the lack of guaranteed success, it's the claw game type odds with possible near wish level payoffs distorting the pressure to use what is basically a ribbon.



No. It's a spell like ability that has a chance of failure, like many other powerful spells and spell like abilities. Right now it's an overly large chance of failure.  That should be changed or at least modified like I suggest to make it reasonable.  It doesn't need to work with no chance of failure.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 4, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Divine Intervention needs to be worded like Limited Wish from the Genie Warlock:
> 
> L11: As an action, you can speak your desire to your Genie's Vessel, requesting the effect of one spell that is 6th level or lower and has a casting time of 1 action. The spell can be from any class's spell list, and you don't need to meet the requirements in that spell, including costly components; the spell simply takes effect as part of this action.
> 
> ...



Thats a good start, but since its Divine Intervention and not just one spell of Xth level or lower, I would want there to be room for things not replicated easily with a spell.

Use the spell levels as a guide to power level for balance, sure, but dont stop there.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 4, 2022)

Oh, and I would ask the table to not use Divine Intervention in downtime.  Unless super plot drama important(tm)


----------



## Blue (Dec 4, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> 5e is designed with all of the DCs set for no expertise & generally for lower level players with lower proficiency bonuses. A character with expertise blows past bounded accuracy both by advancing in levels beyond the narrow band bounded accuracy _and_ by adding double the bonus that is already certain to exceed the math's expectations before getting doubled.
> 
> .. Bounded  accuracy means that things like expertise and static DCs not linked to levels *can't" exist or that players can't level and all DCs assume expertise



This question at hand is *by the rules do the DCs get inflated so that characters without expertise are not able to meet them*.  The answer is no.  Everything else you wrote is not germane to the question at hand, especially the last part where you say that DC list on page 124 of the PHB "can't exist".  They very obviously DO exist.  If you have a problem with them, that's a separate topic.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 4, 2022)

Blue said:


> This question at hand is *by the rules do the DCs get inflated so that characters without expertise are not able to meet them*.  The answer is no.  Everything else you wrote is not germane to the question at hand, especially the last part where you say that DC list on page 124 of the PHB "can't exist".  They very obviously DO exist.  If you have a problem with them, that's a separate topic.



I disagree.  Attempting to limit discussion about how 5e avoids part of a specific & well known 3.5 problem to exclude mention of how it preserves the other half of that very same problem pretty much spotlights how severe the problem is.  There is a great post over on thealexandrian about it here 








						1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad
					

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:




					thealexandrian.net


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 4, 2022)

Blue said:


> This question at hand is *by the rules do the DCs get inflated so that characters without expertise are not able to meet them*.  The answer is no.  Everything else you wrote is not germane to the question at hand, especially the last part where you say that DC list on page 124 of the PHB "can't exist".  They very obviously DO exist.  If you have a problem with them, that's a separate topic.



It's not just about the extremes for me.  A DC30 is described as nearly impossible.   An expert can potentially have a 50% chance of success but only at high levels and in a primary stat.  That in itself might seem fine, but it feels a bit too easy if you ladle a cantrip or bardic die on top.  Still, it's more of a problem for the more common extremely difficult DC20 checks that become almost impossible to fail.

For me, the issue with skill checks is the focus on pass or fail rather than total failure, partial failure, sucess, and total success.  I think a natural 1 should always be total failure.  Natural 20 should never be a total failure but might not be a success.

I would reduce expertise bonuses to +1 to +3 (overall bonus range of +8 to +14 at 20 depending on stats) but grant the new category of miraculous success which allows you to use inspiration to turn a natural 20 into a total success even if your total score falls below the DC.

I think I would prefer expertise to provide an RP benefit over simply boosted skills.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It's not Mother May I since you are not asking the DM's permission to use it.  You get to use it when you declare it to be used, just like any other action.  Then the DM narrates the result, just like any other action.




Hmm... yes, I guess that's the direct definition. I was more thinking that it's "along the lines" of that sort of thing, in that WHAT IT DOES is entirely up to the DM. Again, I kind of like what it does story-wise, but I'm not at all there with the implementation. I guess that while I like the idea of it, I don't think it's mechanically a good ability.


----------



## Blue (Dec 5, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I disagree.  Attempting to limit discussion about how 5e avoids part of a specific & well known 3.5 problem to exclude mention of how it preserves the other half of that very same problem pretty much spotlights how severe the problem is.



There was no attempt to limit a discussion - that *was *the discussion that was being had: can the rules handle it.  You are attempting to expand the discussion with points beyond the rules, which are not relevant for the discussion.

It's like if there was a discussion if horses or bicycles were faster over long distances, and you insist on talking about trains.  Keeping something on-topic is acceptable.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 5, 2022)

Blue said:


> There was no attempt to limit a discussion - that *was *the discussion that was being had: can the rules handle it.  You are attempting to expand the discussion with points beyond the rules, which are not relevant for the discussion.
> 
> It's like if there was a discussion if horses or bicycles were faster over long distances, and you insist on talking about trains.  Keeping something on-topic is acceptable.



No there was a statement that you only had the echoes of 3.x if the gm goes against raw to bump the DCs but you get those echoes with strict RAW, pointing out how is not expanding the discussion so much as correcting a needlessly narrow focus on the type of echoes.  The gm does not need to bump the DCs because there are too many ways to lhsmmer through the poorly arranged boundaries of bounded accuracy and one of those ways is to simply level a pc over time beyond the narrow band of levels BA was tuned for.  IME that band seems to be tier one & early tier two.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 6, 2022)

Bounded accuracy works well in 5e.
Expertise is in a good spot.

It is just as in 3.x. Don't raise DCs because you as a DM don't like the rogue succeeding without magic.

Going back to ADnD, there was a big misconception about rogues skills.
They were not the only ones to move silently or listen at doors or climb. Everyone could move silently by rolling under dex, listen on doors by rolling under wis. Or climbing by rolling under str.

The rogue had a slim chance to do it, when it seemed impossible to do the task.
Transferred to 5e (and 3e btw.) it means, that you need to keep the DC low enough that everyone has a chance to succeed. But the rogue (or other expert with good stats) usually succeeds and might even succeed on a hard or very hard task.

The offender is not expertise, but the way, reliable talent is framed. I think, it should have been that your floor is 5 or 8. Or the way the barbarian ability works: substitute str or dex score for your roll total.


----------

