D&D (2024) One D&D is one D&D too much (-)

The baked in feats...I dunno. We never used feats (not that I didn't allow them, my players just never used them). I'm still in the middle on this. I was expecting more compatability but the more I read I notice they say "your adventures and source books will still be usable". They never explicitly say "Rule books". I'm okay with this just as long as I can use the adventures and setting books I have. I don't mind upgrading to new core books as long as the play style remains the same. Inspiration, so with the starter set we used it but the players just forgot they had it so we stopped. I'm curious to see if picks up. Don't know that I like monsters loosing the ability to crit. It brings tension to the combats. I can see the reasoning though and it might play better than I'm thinking. I know this is play test material and will change. I just hope the new D&D doesn't regress. I also hope we get TotM info that one guy asked for. I mean they told him he would be pleased then they unveil a VTT with minis and such. I have nothing against minis or VTTs by the way just not my favorite style.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Determine Your Origin
- Children of Different Humanoid Kinds: Oi... So, you have the TRAITS of a Halfling, but look like a Gnome. Great, as far as the game is concerned, you're still Halfling. Now, if you got to pick different traits from each race to make something which was actually combined, that would be okay. But that wasn't how this was written, unfortunately. Maybe it was their intent?
Then give that advice in the survey. I like the core concept, but also would like if they gave an optional rule for combining the mechanics of two different races. I'm giving that feedback. If you want that, you should too.
- Size has no bearing here. Whether Medium or Small, you occupy the same 5-foot space. If you aren't going to have a meaningful differentiation between the two sizes, why bother having it? The range of Small also changes, which is laughable. It is 2-4 feet for humans, but 3-4 feet for ardlings.
Flavor. And, nothing appears to have changed from earlier this edition. And they didn't change the ranges of Small, they just gave different ranges for different races. So Small Humans cover a larger range of the Small size than Ardlings. Like how it worked in the 2014 PHB for Halflings and Gnomes.
- Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.
Then give that in the playtest.
- Dragonborn. So, no small dragonborn then? Hmm... At least they gave them Darkvision (one of the few races it actually makes sense to have it...).
Not every race can be every size. What's with the snark?
- Dwarf. Also, no small dwarves? Hmm... No Lineage options for dwarves (you aren't special enough). Forge Wise. Great, now I get to pick from other tools which have little use in the game. Just give them ANY two tool proficiencies of their choice. Stonecunning. What is the logic behind this? Espcially with limited uses? So, I can see this now:

Player: I want focus on the stonework to sense movement.
DM: You've already done that twice, you can't do it again.
Player: Um, why not, does my senses not work any more?
DM: Uh, I guess it is to balance the game. shrugs
Again, no, every race has different sizes they can be. What's your problem with this? And we haven't seen the changes to tool proficiencies yet, so wait to complain about that until we see it.

Stonecunning being limited? I don't know. Balance maybe. Or a blessing from Moradin like Forge Wise. However, I would just make it always on. If you want that too, leave that advice in the survey.
- Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here...
Trend? Is it that races have different height ranges? Because that's the trend.
Lineage. Sweet, nice to know my drow with INT 18 can use that instead of having to use my CHA 8 for that Faerie Fire saving throw! Why not tie the ability to the appropriate spells? Oh, that's right, we can't have limits in D&D.
They do make limits. You can't use your Physical Ability Scores to cast the spells. They're just opening it up a bit so a) you don't have to keep track of multiple different spell save DCs from your race and class if you're a Wizard or other spellcasting class.
- Gnome. Wait, where is my Medium-size gnome option! Not cool. What about all those Gnome gardenball players? At least you have Lineage options...

- Halflings. Sorry, you can't be Medium either. But don't worry, it makes no difference in the game anyway other than you can move through those enemy Medium-size spaces. Oh, and no lineage options for you, either!
Do you like races being limited to different sizes, or do you just want to complain without saying what you want?
- Orc. Sorry, not half, but all Orc. You can be a Half-Orc still, and mechanically just be an Orc that looks Human or whatever, or be an Human or whatever and look like an Orc! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Good! Giving full race stats for Half-Elves and Half-Orcs always brings up questions of "What about Half-Gnomes, or Half-Halflings, or Half-Tabaxi" and whatnot. It's a slippery slope. This is a win for game designers.
- TEF-ling. No, TEEF-ling, my bad. At least you can be small or medium like the other special races but you get legacies. Um, no legacy for cold damage, but hey necrotic is there. Seems odd since more fiends have resistance to cold than necrotic, but whateves.
They're opening up Tieflings to be of non-human heritages, like they did for Genasi, Aasimar, and other races in Monsters of the Multiverse. That includes small races, which explains why they can be Medium or Small. To me, that's a win.

If you want one of them to be resistant to Cold damage instead of Poison or Necrotic, say that in the survey. That's a fine recommendation.
BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND (only 19.95 and you can take it home with you!)

- Moving "fixed" ASIs to Background. So, people got offended by racial fixed ASIs (No way! Your Goliath just can't be stronger than my Halfling!!!)
Except for Small Giant and everything else built into the race that makes them stronger/tougher than halflings.
so they made them "floating." Now they moved them to background, but now they are "fixed" again in the example backgrounds (which people will read that way, you know they will...).

When, in reality, they are still floating because backgrounds are completely customizable. This change does nothing really. ASIs still float, so why bother tying them to background either? Now, we can listen to people complain "No way! Your Soldier just can't be smarter than my Sage!"
They are. It's actually a really common mistake online from the discussions that I've been in for people to miss the whole "you are recommended to customize the backgrounds how you want" part of the UA. Apparently, people online take things out of context and don't actually fully read the thing they're posting about. Who knew?

And they're tying them to backgrounds to give some justification of why they're even in the game at this point. Soldiers will be stronger/healthier than the average person, so the sample Soldier background they give grants them a bonus to STR and CON. They're quietly saying "Hey, you should build your custom backgrounds around where it would make sense for the Background ASIs to go". That's why they're still a thing. They're testing to see if it works for the broader community.

There might be some people that didn't read the rule fully and complain about specific ASIs, feats, and languages being "locked" into certain backgrounds, but WotC shouldn't design the game around the dumbest interpretation of a rule that's explicitly clear in how it works.
- Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?
To make Backgrounds more important and give an easy excuse for including one of the most common homebrew rules people take. And to make stuff like Strixhaven Initiate and the Knights of Solamnia feats possible.
- Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.
Yep.
FEATS
Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...
Because it clearly looks like they're trying to balance them out a bit. And separating them by levels is a part of that.
Repeating Feats? Seriously, there was only ONE before, so unless you plan to have several, this is pointless. Just make each feat only selectable once.
And it looks like they're planning on making it easier to add more. So what are you complaining about?
- Alert. Good nerf but you went too far. Unless you are just planning to downgrade the general power level of feats (which I am all for otherwise!).
I'm pretty sure that's their goal with the whole "separating feats by level" thing they're testing with this document. 1st level feats will be useful, but not as good as later level feats (which, presumably, will be the feats like Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter). And, compared to the rest of 1st level feats in this document . . . this is still a worthwhile feat to take, and it did get a utility buff.
- Healer. Right, let's nerf the best non-magical healing--oh, wait, the only non-magical healing--in the game. Guess they want everyone to use ye ol' healin' magic. Bring back the healing wants and heal-bot PCs!
Nerf? Can you please explain how? Because, to me, it looks like it both got nerfed and buffed. And are you mad that they're giving options for nonmagical healing . . . because there aren't other options? Dude, don't complain about a good thing. That will just make them less likely to give you more of that good thing. If you want more sources of nonmagical healing ask for that in the survey document. Scolding them for it not being present before probably won't achieve . . . whatever you're aiming to achieve with this.
- Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.
Actually, no. Because, while you do get more uses, now it's just advantage/disadvantage. The wording is slightly off, so it doesn't really do what it intends to do, but this is definitely a nerf from the PHB version of this feat. If you want it to be nerfed even more, put that in the survey.
- Magic Initiate. Sure, why not make THIS ONE repeatable. Can't have enough magic in a magical game, huh? Oh, and let's make it so players can swap out those spell choices. Heaven forbid someone actually as to live with a choice they made...
They don't want people to get every cantrip in the game and the equivalent of 8 1st level spell slots, I guess. If you want it repeatable, leave that in the survey.
- Savage Attacker. Lame before and they made it even MORE lame. I didn't think it was possible, but they did it. At least before you could benefit on it from any weapon attack (even if you didn't take the Attack action) and you could use it on other creatures turns if you got an OA or something. It works out to less than a +1 to damage once per round. yeah... yawns
Umm . . . to me, it looks like this feat got buffed and the minor nerf of not working on OAs. It no longer specified "melee weapon attack" and just works on any weapon.

The feat still isn't good (well, it might be for level 1 if it's the only damaging feat option), but it's definitely not worse than before, IMO. It's opened up to more weapon options and you can get it before you'd get access to Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Looks like a slight improvement upon garbage to . . . slightly shiny garbage.
- Skilled. Ok, so you can repeat Skilled, but you can't repeat Crafter or Musician? I guess those additional tools or instruments are just too hard to learn.
If you want them to be repeatable, put that in the survey. I think the main reason Musician couldn't be repeated is because Inspiring Song exists, and Crafter probably isn't repeatable to not get a 100% discount on your shopping prices/crafting times.
- Tavern Brawler. Take a decent feat and make it worse. The damage reroll will happen enough to make it annoying, and the benefit is only 0.375 extra damage. Why bother? Honestly? Oh, and you don't have to use that Bonus Action now, but you also can't grapple, just a little shove. I suppose if they are next to the pit or cliff that could increase your damage a lot. Furniture as Weapon? Oi... at least proficiency in improvised weapons gave you a lot more options.
My guess is that they wanted to make it more specific to Taverns . . . for some reason. Yeah, this one is weird. I got nothing.
D20 Test? (Failed!)
Seriously, most players already thought a 1 always fails and a 20 always succeeds on ablity checks and saves. Glad you guys finally caught up.
Yep. So, good change? No need for the salt.
Critical Hits
No more critical spells and no critical unarmed strikes for 2 damage instead of 1. I guess they found a way to nerf casters and I'm glad they cleared up that extra damage issue on unarmed strikes. That extra point of damage killed more PCs...
Critical unarmed strikes didn't do extra damage before . . . so I don't know if you were playing correctly.
Grappled
Great, I am sure all the players will love having their targets get free chances to escape and not have to use their Action for that anymore.
??? That's how it worked in base 5e. Now, your grapple just automatically works if you hit them and they have to try to break out later (presumably through using an Action to escape, but it's not clear yet). If this does what I think it does, this is a huge improvement of how Grappling worked in 5e and might actually encourage players to use it (which was very uncommon before).
Inspiration
So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is not "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...
5e was designed under the assumption that Inspiration was going to be more common than it ended up being in practice. So, it's not powercreep from the intended power level, because it's actually making the mechanic built into the system to remind players and DMs that it exists and is useful.
SPELL LISTS
Took you long enough....
So, you like the change. No need to be negative if you like the darn thing.
//// END RANT ////
If you needed to get that out of your system, I hope it helped. However, I think you were being a bit uncharitable to the document and the reasons behind a lot of the changes. Maybe look over things a bit more with new eyes (you got a few things wrong, and definitely have a grudge) if you can.
 

Haplo781

Legend
I’m not sure that is actually a good measurement of one’s knowledge of a subject. One can independently research anything without directly participating in it and form an informed opinion. Sources do matter, but actually participating in something is not necessary to having an informed opinion of it.
If only people with informed opinions weighed in, 4e would have lasted a lot longer.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
It's called a rant for a reason. A "rant" isn't about explaining things necessarily.
Yeah. But a lot of it was nonsensical. You're getting mad at something unrelated to the thing that's actually pissing you off. That just seems . . . unhealthy.
As I said in the OP, feel free to disagree, but I'm not "wrong", you just disagree. :)
The parts where you misread the text were wrong. I do disagree on some of the stuff that is subjective . . . but you were absolutely wrong about Lucky and some of the other changes.
Also, nothing I said has anything to do with how I play D&D currently, just FYI.
Did I say anything about that? I specified that some of the "changes" you were commenting on were actually just a part of the game since the beginning.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Yeah. But a lot of it was nonsensical. You're getting mad at something unrelated to the thing that's actually pissing you off. That just seems . . . unhealthy.

The parts where you misread the text were wrong. I do disagree on some of the stuff that is subjective . . . but you were absolutely wrong about Lucky and some of the other changes.

Did I say anything about that? I specified that some of the "changes" you were commenting on were actually just a part of the game since the beginning.
Look, I'm not engaging with you on this. Please drop it.
 

Staffan

Legend
Nerf? Can you please explain how?
5e Healer: heals a creature for d6+4+its level hp, once per target's short/long rest. Can also be used to stabilize a person and bring them to 1 hp (meaning they're awake and can do stuff) instead of 0.

D1D Healer: requires target to spend a Hit Die, and the target regains that Hit Die (reroll once on a 1) + your proficiency bonus.

The 5e feat heals for more (assuming you're not using it on a barbarian who is significantly lower level than you), scales better (but still not well), and doesn't cost a Hit Die to use.

I could also bring up my rant here about how much I dislike 5e's Hit Dice and how they're a very, very bad substitute for 4e's healing surges.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
5e Healer: heals a creature for d6+4+its level hp, once per target's short/long rest. Can also be used to stabilize a person and bring them to 1 hp (meaning they're awake and can do stuff) instead of 0.

D1D Healer: requires target to spend a Hit Die, and the target regains that Hit Die (reroll once on a 1) + your proficiency bonus.

The 5e feat heals for more (assuming you're not using it on a barbarian who is significantly lower level than you), scales better (but still not well), and doesn't cost a Hit Die to use.

I could also bring up my rant here about how much I dislike 5e's Hit Dice and how they're a very, very bad substitute for 4e's healing surges.
Yeah, that is a nerf. I'll be asking for that to get a buff in the document. Might also ask for "Healing Kits" to be significantly changed.
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Because otherwise it'll be nothing but an echo chamber - people in the playtest are likely there because they already like the directions 1D&D is going, meaning the odds are there'll only ever be suggestions for minor tweaks here and there rather than any real directional pushback or serious calls for an outright course change.
They never cared about that in the D&D Next playtest, why would they start now? "Echo chamber" is precisely what killed the original (much much better) Sorcerer and Warlock concepts, among other things during the public playtest. Why is an echo chamber a problem now when it wasn't back then?
 


AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases

Top