D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Travelers of the Multiverse

New free content from WotC - the latest 4-page Unearthed Arcana introduces six new races: astral elf, autognome, giff, hadozee, plasmoid, and thri-kreen.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Looks like Spelljammer and/or Planescape is back on the menu!

 

[Argyle King]

To me wild shape is similar to polymorph. You're becoming something else. If you're a hummingbird, you aren't a dragonborn. I get that RAW allows it, but it's silly to me. I wouldn't take it away from the PC, but it's not my favorite rule...

...It's just a fancy way of saying that the bonuses don't go as high as they used to. Personally I think they bounded things too much. Rather than limit classes to +6 over 20 levels, I'd have gone with +10. Bonuses are fun for players.

I don't think it's wrong to rule it that way.

To me, I think saying that you can do stuff if the new form is physically capable of it is more open ended with Wildshape because, unlike Polymorph, you retain your mental faculties.

As for "bounded accuracy," I suppose it's Akshay true that the actual numbers aren't as big, but there's still a rather sizeable variance in what the numbers can be. I don't think they're as bounded as that phrase would imply.

Personally, I think that the game would benefit from less +N things. That is to say that I'd be okay with being bounded more and making most numbers smaller. Cool abilities, flavor, and breadth of options are more interesting to me than accumulating more numbers.

 

[Maxperson]

The beauty of the system in 5E us thst it matches the curve from pre-3E perfectly: 0 to 30 instead of 20 to -10, but the math works the same.

I'm trying to understand that, but I don't. I was talking about +6(proficiency) which when added to +5 from stat is +11, so you can get a 31. And the latter 20 to -10 seems to include AC, but then the 20 confuses me.

 

[Parmandur]

As for "bounded accuracy," I suppose it's Akshay true that the actual numbers aren't as big, but there's still a rather sizeable variance in what the numbers can be. I don't think they're as bounded as that phrase would imply.

In 3E, all numbers had no cap and were assumed to keep going up and up. 5E li.ots normal DCs to 20, equivalent to 0 in 2E, with extraordinary numbers limited to 30, equivalent to -10. Unlike 3E, 4E and their variants, this creates a bellcurve, hence the "boundry."

 

[Parmandur]

I'm trying to understand that, but I don't. I was talking about +6(proficiency) which when added to +5 from stat is +11, so you can get a 31. And the latter 20 to -10 seems to include AC, but then the 20 confuses me.

All DCs, including AC, are limited to 30 per the rules. Anything past 30 is a success, because the challenge is bounded in the accuracy needed. Do a PC with +12 has a 15% chance at a DC 30.

 

[Maxperson]

In 3E, all numbers had no cap and were assumed to keep going up and up. 5E li.ots normal DCs to 20, equivalent to 0 in 2E, with extraordinary numbers limited to 30, equivalent to -10. Unlike 3E, 4E and their variants, this creates a bellcurve, hence the "boundry."

Okay. Gotcha. That makes more sense.

I'd still like to see it go up to +10. Players in my experience like seeing more advancement as they level. 3e and 4e went overboard with it, but I think 5e cut it back too far. Even if it matches up to 2e as far as non-combat DCs are concerned.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay. Gotcha. That makes more sense.

I'd still like to see it go up to +10. Players in my experience like seeing more advancement as they level. 3e and 4e went overboard with it, but I think 5e cut it back too far. Even if it matches up to 2e as far as non-combat DCs are concerned.

More with combat thanks non- combat, actually: the math for AC in 5E works exactly like THAC0, just more intuitively.

 

[Argyle King]

All DCs, including AC, are limited to 30 per the rules. Anything past 30 is a success, because the challenge is bounded in the accuracy needed. Do a PC with +12 has a 15% chance at a DC 30.

I've seen that ability scores are limited, but I'm not familiar with something saying that AC has a hard cap.

Either way, my view was more in regard to the variation in what different PCs can do. With some PCs having (easy) access to double proficiency in skills, magic items, and a variety of other things; there's still a rather large range of possible results.

 

[Parmandur]

I've seen that ability scores are limited, but I'm not familiar with something saying that AC has a hard cap.

Either way, my view was more in regard to the variation in what different PCs can do. With some PCs having (easy) access to double proficiency in skills, magic items, and a variety of other things; there's still a rather large range of possible results.

Yup, it's in the rules, all target DCs, including AC, have a strict cap of 30. That's the singularity point for difficulty thst sets the boundary of possibility. That's why Ability Scores also have a cap, to fit the math of the DC cap.

For adding variety, don't forget to use proficiency as a gate: such as only allowing the Paladin to roll Religuon checks when relevant if they are the only one to have Proficiency, or the Ranger & Barbarian to be the only one who can roll Survival in certain situations if nobody else has Proficiency.

 

[Maxperson]

More with combat thanks non- combat, actually: the math for AC in 5E works exactly like THAC0, just more intuitively.

That I don't agree with. In 2e plate and shield were AC 2, which is what plate is by itself in 5e. In 5e plate and shield would be the 2e equivalent of AC 0. However, in 2e I could have an 18 dex and have an AC of -2 with plate and shield. Further, if I had plate +5, a shield +5, and a ring of protection +3, my base 2e AC would be -10. In 5e the best base armor class I can achieve is 26(plate+3 and shield +3), which would be equivalent to AC -6.

Now for proficiency vs. THAC0. In 2e only wizards went up so slow. They got +6 to hit over 20 levels. 2e Fighters got +1 to hit per level past level 1, so at level 20 their proficiency would be +19. Add in a +5 weapon, a 17 strength and specialization and they were swinging at +26 to hit. They could roll a 2 and hit AC -8. In 5e a 20th level fighter with a 20 strength. +6 proficiency and a +3 weapon still needs a 12 to in order to hit the AC of 26(-6).

The math isn't the same.

 

[Parmandur]

The math isn't the same

The spread and bellcurve are the same.