NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JEB" data-source="post: 8416551" data-attributes="member: 10148">Looking forward to the opportunity to provide feedback on these changes.Thoughts on creatures:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Creature Type: I'm largely OK with this, though I suspect in practice this means only creatures intended as PCs will get the Humanoid label. (Though we'll see more PCs outside the Humanoid label, on a case-by-case basis.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alignment: Despite the claims that the removal of alignment was always intended as a temporary "time-out", I'd bet that if they hadn't gotten enough negative responses, it would have stayed gone. (Side question: Will we see alignments for Candlekeep and Ravenloft monsters and NPCs in errata for those books?) I applaud their attempt to thread the needle in the current approach, though I imagine a fair number of folks will still be unsatisfied one way or the other.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tags: Tags to identify a creature's intended character class could be pretty useful for reverse-engineering. But I hope they don't go too crazy with new ones.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bonus Actions: Good call.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spellcasting: The intent is good, and I very much like having (former?) spells described in the stat block for convenience. But I'm not happy about something that obscures the effective level of a NPC's spellcasting, or the complete removal of spell slots, both of which make modifying NPCs tougher.</li> </ul>Thoughts on races:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Creature Type: No issues here.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ability Score Increases: I'm disappointed they're still sticking with "optimize for your class" as the quick build option, since I think that will discourage ability score diversity as much as floating ASI would otherwise encourage it. Keeping the old-school default ASIs as a quick-build option would be a nice olive branch to fans who liked that, as well. Certainly makes character race design easier, though!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Age: Don't like this. Maybe they were uncomfortable with character races that became mature at a younger age than humans, but tossing out suggested age ranges entirely is massively overcompensating. Of course, this also means even less work...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alignment: As long as they still describe default cultures (ideally more than one), the loss of alignment here is fine.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Size: Having multiple size options is interesting, though I hope we don't see it on every single race. Dropping suggested heights and weights isn't as bad as dropping age ranges (though again, not lost on me that this means less design work); but having different tables for small and medium characters would have been nice, just to avoid the bizarre potential scenario of a Small seven-foot character. (Dare I hope we might finally see Tiny or Large races?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Languages: Was this a common complaint, that dwarves usually know Dwarvish or elves usually know Elvish? I don't understand why a default here is a no-go, as long as you make it clear you can pick whatever.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification