OneDnD combing through the new glossary changes.

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Not a fan of the new long rest. It takes things back to being inevitable.

Also poorly worded at the end.

"You can resume a Long Rest immediately after an interruption. If you do so, the rest requires 1 additional hour to finish per interruption."

So if you get into combat and you cast two spells, that's 3 interruptions for an additional 3 hours. But your non-caster friend who also got into combat, but didn't cast any spells only has an additional 1 hour added to their long rest. So now everyone has different lengths of long rests.
My read is that the rest is interrupted by the fight, so until you resume it, those spells would not count as additional interruptions.
Why even have casting a spell interrupt a long rest? Combat already interrupts it, so what non-combat spells are they trying to prevent people from using during their 2 hours of light activity? Alarm?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Regarding Aid: I think changing it to temp HP makes as much sense as anything, but I don't think it makes it better, just simpler. I've mostly seen people use it preemptively. After a long rest the cleric says "You 3 get 5 max hp, and you three get 10" and we go off. Often the change to max simply doesn't matter and is almost equivalent to temp hp, and temp hp is simpler to keep track of, perhaps. You've got to take a lot of damage and then get a lot of healing for a change in max HP to be noticeable vs thp. I've seen Aid used a bunch, but I think it actually only affected the battle 1 in 6 castings at best when used preemptively to raise max hp before the battle (ie, the player would have gone down if not for the aid boost). 5 thp is pretty meager, and the number of times this will be mostly a wasted spell slot when used will remain high. The biggest impact will be no longer waking up from unconscious, which actually I've not seen in practice, but can see how that would be used in some groups, in which case, this is a bit of a loss, though maybe that is intentional.

I guess I've never really been impressed by aid. I'm still not impressed, but will find it less annoying when the friendly cleric casts it on me as I only have to deal with thp, not changing my max. I guess that's improvement.
Mostly, it prevents aid from stacking with temp HP
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
Why even have casting a spell interrupt a long rest? Combat already interrupts it, so what non-combat spells are they trying to prevent people from using during their 2 hours of light activity? Alarm?

I've never seen it in practice myself, but spells like Mage Armor, Gift of Alacrity, Death Ward, right before the long rest "completes".
 


Maybe your mount was tricking you as to intentions? Maybe your mount is feared? Maybe your mount is impacted by some mind altering effect like charm or whatever? There are an endless list of reasons why rider & mount might not agree but the proper ability to recover from those kind of things is handle animal persuade intimidate or whatever, not grapple. & certainly not a grapple that comes automatically with an unarmed attack.
That does not make the mount recover. That just grapples it, and is likely to make it try to break free from you and run away. Grappling is a hostile action.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I've never seen it in practice myself, but spells like Mage Armor, Gift of Alacrity, Death Ward, right before the long rest "completes".
Yeah, I've seen that. With this change the caster needs another hour to finish the long rest while the rest of the party is done and has to stand around waiting. Or they wait two minutes and start walking. The long rest isn't interrupted by less than one hour of walking, so they just complete it as they walk. As long as there's no fight or they don't cast any other spells, they're good.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
The thing about the old version of aid is that is greatly helps enable mixed level play. The new version doesn't.
I missed that on the first readthrough. My first thought was "wow that's awesome" but thinking a bit deeper this might actually bring back straight up 3.5 glibness diplomancer level problems. Intelligence is hardly a good stat for most monsters. If anything that just shifts it from an obviously bonkers roll a 5 or better at level 1 to usually the same. The change does nothing at all about making int important for players too since influence doesn't work on them

Give it a couple levels & that better of 15 or int DC isn't looking so tough . Take a level 8 or 9 charismsa based pc with +4 or +5 cha & simply proficient in persuade or something That's going to be +8 or +9 to a d20 that only needs to hit DC15 & things are back to roll 5 or better.
Yeah, I've seen that. With this change the caster needs another hour to finish the long rest while the rest of the party is done and has to stand around waiting. Or they wait two minutes and start walking. The long rest isn't interrupted by less than one hour of walking, so they just complete it as they walk. As long as there's no fight or they don't cast any other spells, they're good.
I'm not sure that's a problem, even if each spell during a combat adds +1. the whole party is vulnerable & "you know it's not safe to rest here" holds a lot more weight if all of the casters are going to have a desire to keep one arm behind their back if the group gets attacked during the rest in order to minimize the extra hours
That does not make the mount recover. That just grapples it, and is likely to make it try to break free from you and run away. Grappling is a hostile action.

.The trouble is that you can grapple a creature you are capable of riding even while riding the creature or similar. It makes for a pointless "this is going to cause problems" What exactly is gained by this gaping hole in search of a problem?
 

.The trouble is that you can grapple a creature you are capable of riding even while riding the creature or similar. It makes for a pointless "this is going to cause problems" What exactly is gained by this gaping hole in search of a problem?
You could always grapple a creature you were riding, so it does not really change anything in my opinion.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
You could always grapple a creature you were riding, so it does not really change anything in my opinion.
"It was bonkers before" is hardly a ringing endorsement. The shift from natural language to technical writing makes correcting it more important.

Edit: "The grappled target can't move away from the grappler" or similar would be better wording
 
Last edited:

M_Natas

Adventurer
The whole influence action just needs to go away. Don't make it an playerfacing action. Players should never be allowed to force charisma checks.
The new version is better but than the last still way worse than the status quo, where the DM decides when a charisma check is warranted and what the DC is
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The whole influence action just needs to go away. Don't make it an playerfacing action. Players should never be allowed to force charisma checks.
The new version is better but than the last still way worse than the status quo, where the DM decides when a charisma check is warranted and what the DC is
Let me start by saying I agree with you. However, I don’t think this version actually does allow a player to force a Charisma check. It’s mostly just a reframing of the existing social interaction rules to make them transparent to players (and to DMs who, let’s be honest, probably didn’t read the DMG where these rules are currently found). It describes the attitudes NPCs might have towards the PCs, and when an ability check is “usually required” or might succeed or fail automatically, based on the NPC’s attitude and the nature of the request. But the Interaction portion still makes it clear that the player describes what they do to try to influence the NPC, and the DM can temporarily shift the NPC’s attitude based on that description. Keep in mind that the rule’s glossary for ability checks still specifies that the DM calls for one when there’s an uncertain outcome and narratively interesting consequences. Now, the Influence action does provide a default DC for the Charisma check if one is called for, but again, the glossary for ability checks specify that the DM can override any DC set by the rules.
 

Lojaan

Adventurer
Not a fan of the new long rest. It takes things back to being inevitable.

Also poorly worded at the end.

"You can resume a Long Rest immediately after an interruption. If you do so, the rest requires 1 additional hour to finish per interruption."

So if you get into combat and you cast two spells, that's 3 interruptions for an additional 3 hours. But your non-caster friend who also got into combat, but didn't cast any spells only has an additional 1 hour added to their long rest. So now everyone has different lengths of long rests.
I dont think they changed anything from the original version, just clarified it. You know, stop people thinking that they can get up, fight for an hour non-stop, then go to bed again as if nothing happened.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
The whole influence action just needs to go away. Don't make it an playerfacing action. Players should never be allowed to force charisma checks.
The new version is better but than the last still way worse than the status quo, where the DM decides when a charisma check is warranted and what the DC is
The new rule still says that a DM decides if the roll is warranted. Checks with Friendly creatures can automatically succeed, and checks against sufficiently Hostile creatures can automatically fail. And it says that it's not mind-control, so there's no possibility of there being scenarios like "I convinced the king to make me his heir because I rolled a Natural 20". And the result of the roll is up to the DM.

I do think that the DC rules could use a bit of tweaking, but overall I think it's a good idea and an improvement on the last version.
 

Staffan

Legend
  • Attack[action]: Seems that it's changed from "you can equip or unequip one weapon before or after any attack" to "you can equip or unequip one weapon before or after each attack you make"...
    • I'm not sure that's better or worse. My initial feeling is that it's functionally identical change for the sake of change without doing anything about this huge problem. Am I overlooking the change?
"Any" implies that you can do it once, but before or after any attack. "Each" implies multiple times. I guess this is primarily intended for thrown weapons, in order to remove any limit on number of attacks.
"After you finish a Long Rest you must wait at least 16 hours before starting another one" Anything to put hurdles between long rest spamming of 5mwd is great.
I would make the limit slightly lower, along the lines of 12 hours or so. Still long enough to remove multiple long rest shenanigans, but giving some wiggle room about when you take your rest.
  • Dazed: It's not in the changelog but fills a niche that feels similar to the old shaken condition. On your turn you can move or take an action but not both. You also can't take reactions or bonus actions.
I think you're thinking of Staggered, not Shaken.
 


Stalker0

Legend
The new rule still says that a DM decides if the roll is warranted. Checks with Friendly creatures can automatically succeed, and checks against sufficiently Hostile creatures can automatically fail. And it says that it's not mind-control, so there's no possibility of there being scenarios like "I convinced the king to make me his heir because I rolled a Natural 20". And the result of the roll is up to the DM.

I do think that the DC rules could use a bit of tweaking, but overall I think it's a good idea and an improvement on the last version.
While technically true, I do find rolling has a momentum all its own. You let players make a few persuasion rolls and suddenly they get it in their heads that they can do that in any situation.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
"Any" implies that you can do it once, but before or after any attack. "Each" implies multiple times. I guess this is primarily intended for thrown weapons, in order to remove any limit on number of attacks.

I would make the limit slightly lower, along the lines of 12 hours or so. Still long enough to remove multiple long rest shenanigans, but giving some wiggle room about when you take your rest.

I think you're thinking of Staggered, not Shaken.
It doesn't specify what kind of attack though.. each attack [action]? each [melee/ranged weapon] attack? Without specificity the answer is going to depend on the table.
edit: The fix for thrown weapons having a unique problem with being drawn needs to be on the thrown weapon property where the solution is unique
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The new rule still says that a DM decides if the roll is warranted. Checks with Friendly creatures can automatically succeed, and checks against sufficiently Hostile creatures can automatically fail. And it says that it's not mind-control, so there's no possibility of there being scenarios like "I convinced the king to make me his heir because I rolled a Natural 20". And the result of the roll is up to the DM.

I do think that the DC rules could use a bit of tweaking, but overall I think it's a good idea and an improvement on the last version.
To be fair, I do think the wording needs a bit more work. This is a big improvement over the last packet, but it could stand to be a lot clearer that the DM has final say over whether a roll is required (or possible).
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top