D&D (2024) New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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