D&D (2024) (Only) mechanical discussion

[Kobold Stew]

The Paladin's new abjure foes is honestly an extremely powerful ability. The key is....even on a passed save the target is still dazed. Melee monsters that are dazed get neutered, as you can move away from them without taking an OA, and if they move back into melee they can't attack. As long as you have room to move, a dazed melee monster should never be able to damage you.

The dazed effect only lasts until the creature takes damage, though, right?

 

[ccooke]

Paladin: why is Divine Smite not a spell like every other smite?

All the other smites, including bow smites and punch smites, work well now.

It adds a bit more action flexibility. As Sorcerers Apprentice said, it doesn't eat a bonus action. That means a paladin could - on one turn - BA activate Divine Sense, detect a threat, move to them, action attack and (free action) smite. That sounds like a turn a paladin player would want to have.

I think 5e favored ranged attack too much already without opening up Divine Smites to ranged attack. I totally like the idea of a ranged paladin being viable, but in a game where ranged attack not only gives you all the advantage of not having to be in danger or waste turns moving into combat, and also lets you grab a +2 to attack rolls fighting style, it's just too much. It should be harder to hit things with a ranged attack than a melee attack, not easier, both on game balance grounds and realism grounds (I mean yes, people bullseye targets, but think about how much more trivial it generally is to aim a melee weapon attack at the same bullseye).

So while I like there being a ranged Paladin option, I think without some tweaks a flood of Paladin-Rogues with longbows is on the horizon, and at some point the feel of the class gets undermined.

They have said a few things recently about adding more weapon versatility, which may make a difference there. There's a quote in the Druid and Paladin packet saying:

DESIGN NOTE: WEAPON CHANGES
The upcoming article on Warrior classes will
introduce new weapon options. Those options will
differentiate weapons from each other more
clearly. For example, the Shortsword (Simple) and
the Scimitar (Martial) will have different roles to
play in the game.

If there were more variety and options in the use of melee weapons, it would make this a much better trade-off (while still making ranged paladins finally a thing). It's still a good point, though.

(On the subject of Fighters, this line from the "What is a Paladin" makes me really want to hope that they are reframing Fighters as something actually special in the world:

Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of a world’s armies, but even fewer people can claim the calling of a Paladin.

... Maybe?)

Why is no one talking about how INFLUENCE, the subsystem from the DMG, is in the core game now! It seems they're trying to make Actions for all the other ability scores too; essentially, WotC is trying to make mechanics and actions for social and exploration pillars in the core game, in simple English.

Isn't this what a lot of people have been asking for? I love it! And I've seen no talk about it!

Yeah, this is a real step forward. It's not too mechanical, either. The guidance on the new Search and Study actions is also a boon for a new DM. I recall that some of the expert classes also get things like "Search as a Bonus Action". This is just better design - it's still able to do everything the old, descriptive rules could (The have just put more formal language into what the old rules allowed you to do), but it's now easier to rule, more supportive to the GM and has mechanical presence that allows characters who should have mechanical advantages in that area to shine. Considering all the skills involved, imagine trying to say "You have Advantage when you take the Study action regarding stonework" (Although in writing this, I can't actually find a good phrasing for the topic, which is annoying).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why is no one talking about how INFLUENCE, the subsystem from the DMG, is in the core game now! It seems they're trying to make Actions for all the other ability scores too; essentially, WotC is trying to make mechanics and actions for social and exploration pillars in the core game, in simple English.

Isn't this what a lot of people have been asking for? I love it! And I've seen no talk about it!

I can only speak for myself... but the reason why these actions (Influence, Search, Study etc.) have not impacted me at all to bother commenting on them is that I don't play or run the game such that I feel they are necessary.

For me... "Actions" only matter in the Combat mini-game. That's the only time I ever have things broken down into tiny segments of Actions, Bonus actions, Reaction etc. Any time the PCs are out of the Combat mini-game... Actions are no longer a thing, players just have their characters do stuff. And if there's a chance their attempts to do stuff could fail... they have to roll Ability Checks. But "Actions" aren't needed, nor a list of what those "Actions" might be. Are these lists of Actionable items useful for other players? Quite possibly! I don't doubt it at all! That's why I don't dismiss them out of hand nor comment on the surveys that they seem unnecessary or should be removed. I'm sure they are quite useful to some people and can stay in the ruleset, they're just not useful to me.

It's really no different than Skill Challenges-- for some people having a more established and "gamified" (for lack of a better term) format to asking for and determining ultimate success for Ability Checks is a boon and a great way to learn when they should be used. But for me, this Skill Challenge mini-game just gets in the way. I don't need the PCs to succeed on "4 checks" to get what they want... because depending on how they roleplay they could get what they want on 3 checks. Or 2. Or even Zero! Because that's all just based upon my own intuition on what I think the opposing side is looking for and I can determine the PC's ultimate success on my own (and not just reaching some arbitrary number of "ability check successes").

If other people are also not really commenting on these Actions, my guess is that it might be for a similar reason.

 

[ccooke]

It's really no different than Skill Challenges-- for some people having a more established and "gamified" (for lack of a better term) format to asking for and determining ultimate success for Ability Checks is a boon and a great way to learn when they should be used. But for me, this Skill Challenge mini-game just gets in the way. I don't need the PCs to succeed on "4 checks" to get what they want... because depending on how they roleplay they could get what they want on 3 checks. Or 2. Or even Zero! Because that's all just based upon my own intuition on what I think the opposing side is looking for and I can determine the PC's ultimate success on my own (and not just reaching some arbitrary number of "ability check successes").

It's really very different, though. Skill challenges were a way of making non-combat encounters work in similar ways to combat encounters, while the new actions in the playtest are all about encapsulating an explaining the way that players can solve the sort of social or environmental problems that come up in 5e. It's a language that helps new players (and new GMs) to see what sort of things that a player can do. Would an experienced group actually need to use all the terms? Absolutely not, and the game would work just the same. But with clear explanations in a new PHB, a new player will have a big leg up on getting to the sort of play that those experienced groups have.

In particular, none of the rules I've seen are written as prescriptive - it's clear from my reading that none of these actions are the only way that these things could be achieved, but they are called out as possible uses of skills, with (particularly for the influence action) putting it firmly in the DM's hands if what the players want is actually possible.

If other people are also not really commenting on these Actions, my guess is that it might be for a similar reason.

Well, at least a couple of people here are talking about it, and the Influence action has survived (with some tweaks) into its third playtest - and given that WotC are pretty public about survey responses and have generally had a habit of removing things that are badly received before that - I think we can conclude that the rules are getting general support.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm excited to have the rule front-and-centre, but I've only read it. Of ALL the things in the playtest packages, the influence action is the one that needs actual play experience to get a sense of how it works. I can guess, but I don't have the actual in-play experience I want to offer real feedback. I think we've almost got enough that one could run some sessions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why is no one talking about how INFLUENCE, the subsystem from the DMG, is in the core game now! It seems they're trying to make Actions for all the other ability scores too; essentially, WotC is trying to make mechanics and actions for social and exploration pillars in the core game, in simple English.

Isn't this what a lot of people have been asking for? I love it! And I've seen no talk about it!

There was a lot of talk about it in the playtest packet where it happened (the previous one, I think). It's not new with this packet.

They do seem to be doing that, though there remains a question as to whether that's to support the "three pillars" or to make the game more 3D VTT friendly and less DM-dependent.

In particular, none of the rules I've seen are written as prescriptive - it's clear from my reading that none of these actions are the only way that these things could be achieved, but they are called out as possible uses of skills, with (particularly for the influence action) putting it firmly in the DM's hands if what the players want is actually possible.

It's a big change in approach.

They're taking stuff from the DMG that was couched almost entirely in maybes and "the DM could..." and putting it out there as a system that will presumably be in the PHB, and that players will be aware of. That's big.

 

[cbwjm]

Channel divinity/nature should be based again on proficiency bonus per long rest.

But it should be available from levels 3 in a class.

subclasses need to be from level 1. with some parts be at level 3.
subclass additional proficiencies, expertise, armor/weapon training, darkvision, climb/swim movement, bonus spells known should be from level 1.
New abilites(channel divinity/nature, assassinate, ambush, cutting words, disciple of life) should be at level 3.

I actually prefer that channel divinity/nature isn't based on proficiency bonus, more or less for the reason they've stated in the playtest, that is that multiclass characters can get plenty of uses for cheap. Now I think it works better, a multiclass druid/barbarian will have a couple uses of channel nature which is still useful, without having it scale upwards based on their overall character level.

I agree about subclasses, they should be from level 1. I keep trying to think of something that will simulate that and I'm thinking of level 1 feats that are bonuses based on the subclass you're going into.

 

[Horwath]

I actually prefer that channel divinity/nature isn't based on proficiency bonus, more or less for the reason they've stated in the playtest, that is that multiclass characters can get plenty of uses for cheap. Now I think it works better, a multiclass druid/barbarian will have a couple uses of channel nature which is still useful, without having it scale upwards based on their overall character level.

I agree about subclasses, they should be from level 1. I keep trying to think of something that will simulate that and I'm thinking of level 1 feats that are bonuses based on the subclass you're going into.

from what is the trend about usage of abilities going from short to long rest per proficiency bonus, we might see a switch in tiers of play, from
4 tiers: 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20 to 5 tiers: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20.

potency of ability should be kept in class levels so single class characters are rewarded, but number of usages should be character based(proficiency bonus), so that multiclassing is still a viable option.

also basing everything on proficiency bonus makes things so much simpler to track.

I have a limited ability? I can use it a number of times per proficiency bonus, or twice, or three times. But, base math stays the same.


Hell, I would put feats/ASIs to proficiency bonus: you have a number of feats equal to proficiency bonus.
some (sub)classes might provide a feat or two extra.

 

[Stalker0]

Why is no one talking about how INFLUENCE, the subsystem from the DMG, is in the core game now! It seems they're trying to make Actions for all the other ability scores too; essentially, WotC is trying to make mechanics and actions for social and exploration pillars in the core game, in simple English.

Isn't this what a lot of people have been asking for? I love it! And I've seen no talk about it!

We talked about it more in the last packet, as it hasn't changed any in this one.

The influence action's biggest change....it makes intelligence now the ability to sniff out lies rather than wisdom. That's actually a very big cultural shift in the two ability scores.