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

cbwjm

Legend
Size has no bearing: This isn't really a "One D&D" thing; this has always been a 5th Edition thing as far as I can tell.
About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.
We also don’t know for sure that this will continue to be the case. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Heavy quality removed.
 

Why is lack of reading comprehension WotC's problem?
I just cackled so loud IRL some dude in the street was looking in the window at me aghast.

Are you serious? I mean come on dude lol.

It's their game! It's absolutely their problem if people don't understand. If I write a manual for one of our products, and even people who read it are missing something because I didn't make it really clear, that's on me, and that's something that I need to fix, and more importantly, want to fix.

It's on the designers to make sure common misunderstandings and misinterpretations don't happen. And it's not hard to do. The easiest way would be to just, as someone suggested, make all those backgrounds be obviously specific to individuals.

Like, if it was a rare problem, sure, that's not WotC's fault, but this is such a widespread problem and it impacts even a lot of smart, experienced DMs, who just don't get custom is the default, and anything else is a choice. We literally had people here in the thread about backgrounds not realizing custom was the default - even though they'd just read something which tried to explain to them (ineptly in my view) that custom was the default. I say ineptly because it waffled and didn't just bold one-sentence "Custom is the default", which it could have.
you can heal 1d6+4+prof once for free per short rest. Otherwise it costs and HD and is HD + prof + their Con. I also want to give something for during short rests, but I'm not sure what.
Yeah I like that.
Savage attacker... someone said something interesting about combining it with Charger, I'm going to be looking into that soon.
The danger with Savage Attacker is taking it from "lol rubbish" to "must have for all melees", and I think adding in Charger might do that. I'd sooner see Savage Attacker deleted outright and the ability to Charge made baseline, like it is in 3E and 4E and possibly even 1E and 2E.
This is the most utterly bizarre argument I have ever seen.
It is not lol. You've seen worse. I've made worse and you've read it! :p ;)

My point is that because it just gives Advantage it's going to get not intentionally "hoarded", but rather not spent. That's very different from "hoarded" where it's intentional.

And yes one player will likely keep spending it - probably a Rogue (or a Crit Fisher if there is one), but most players will just keep not spending it. What you're not likely to see if everyone spending it because of how it works.

If we make it a re-roll, everyone will spend it a lot, and mechanically it's extremely similar to Advantage, but it feels a lot better to get a re-roll (even if it fails, weirdly, then it's just like "Oh the fates were against it!").
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
About the o ly thing this does is make it difficult for small people to wield 2-handed weapons. Not sure what else there might be. I guess they did tend to be slower as well but that's gone now.

I do agree that Small characters need to be given some sort of benefit, instead of pure penalties, but I honestly can't think of anything that they either don't get through logic (easier to hide) or would break the game (bonus to AC)
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I just cackled so loud IRL some dude in the street was looking in the window at me aghast.

Are you serious? I mean come on dude lol.

It's their game! It's absolutely their problem if people don't understand. If I write a manual for one of our products, and even people who read it are missing something because I didn't make it really clear, that's on me, and that's something that I need to fix, and more importantly, want to fix.

It's on the designers to make sure common misunderstandings and misinterpretations don't happen. And it's not hard to do. The easiest way would be to just, as someone suggested, make all those backgrounds be obviously specific to individuals.

Like, if it was a rare problem, sure, that's not WotC's fault, but this is such a widespread problem and it impacts even a lot of smart, experienced DMs, who just don't get custom is the default, and anything else is a choice. We literally had people here in the thread about backgrounds not realizing custom was the default - even though they'd just read something which tried to explain to them (ineptly in my view) that custom was the default. I say ineptly because it waffled and didn't just bold one-sentence "Custom is the default", which it could have.

Right, but... have you read the document? I'll spoil it just in case, I just want to make a point. I'll be bolding the important sections.

CHARACTER BACKGROUNDS

Your character’s Background is a collection of characteristics that represent the place and occupation that were most formative for the character before they embarked on a life of adventure.

When you choose a Background, you have three options:

  • Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
  • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
  • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
No matter which Background you choose, consider these questions from your character’s viewpoint:
  • How does your Background influence your current worldview?
  • Do you embrace or reject your Background?
  • Did you form any relationships during your Background that endure today?
BUILD YOUR BACKGROUND

Using the rules here, you can build a Background from scratch or customize a premade Background, focusing on details
related to the backstory you have in mind for your character.

When you build a Background, your character gains the features in the “Background Features” section below. As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?

If you instead decide to customize a premade Background, you can choose any features in that Background and replace them with the features below of the same name. For example, if you want to change a Background’s Language feature, you can replace that feature with the Language feature below.

[Skipping the actual rules text]

SAMPLE BACKGROUNDS

Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section, and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory.

All of the stuff I bolded? That is all telling the reader that customizing backgrounds is the primary way to do things. They not only put building your own first, they bookended the idea of choosing a premade with using the the rules to make one or taking a premade and customizing it.

Other than literally doing what I am doing and bolding massive sections of the text, how much clearer do they need to be? They devoted an entire page to telling people to make their own, before they even wrote the first sample background, this is all the top of the background rules, first thing you read. They were incredibly clear. Their announcement where they did the interview was incredibly clear. At what point does it stop being their fault that people don't read the rules they are writing?

All the clarity of language in the world won't help someone who doesn't read it. And that isn't on the writer.

The danger with Savage Attacker is taking it from "lol rubbish" to "must have for all melees", and I think adding in Charger might do that. I'd sooner see Savage Attacker deleted outright and the ability to Charge made baseline, like it is in 3E and 4E and possibly even 1E and 2E.

Honestly the current charger feat always felt incredibly poor to me. Yes, it gives you a single attack when you otherwise wouldn't get the chance, but it is in such niche circumstances that no one I have played with since 5e began has felt it was worth a feat. Same is true for savage attacker, which is sounds incredible, until you realize the actual effect is so tiny.

Combining them might be a good way to make them both viable, without making them must haves, because sentinel and other melee feats are still incredibly good

It is not lol. You've seen worse. I've made worse and you've read it! :p ;)

My point is that because it just gives Advantage it's going to get not intentionally "hoarded", but rather not spent. That's very different from "hoarded" where it's intentional.

And yes one player will likely keep spending it - probably a Rogue (or a Crit Fisher if there is one), but most players will just keep not spending it. What you're not likely to see if everyone spending it because of how it works.

If we make it a re-roll, everyone will spend it a lot, and mechanically it's extremely similar to Advantage, but it feels a lot better to get a re-roll (even if it fails, weirdly, then it's just like "Oh the fates were against it!").

What I find strange about your logic is "just advantage" is all Lucky (the new version) is. Yet no one seems to think that players will never take or use Lucky. In fact, people still think it is pretty good.

I don't disagree that in practice people use Inspiration for re-rolls, and that that feels like a better use for it than getting advantage. That just feels like the entire point of discussion should be focused on how we spend Inspiration, not calling how we gain it pointless.
 

What I find strange about your logic is "just advantage" is all Lucky (the new version) is. Yet no one seems to think that players will never take or use Lucky. In fact, people still think it is pretty good.
Nope, it's a re-roll.

Read the text for Lucky:

"Immediately after you roll a d20 for a d20 Test,* you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll."

Bold mine. It's a re-roll, like I'm suggesting this should be. Sure, they're phrasing it as giving yourself Advantage, but that, I'm pretty sure, is a balance measure to prevent people getting "double Advantage" - you obviously logically cannot use Lucky if you already had Advantage on the roll because they're calling it that.

But it's a re-roll, because it's after you roll, thus after you see the number. Whereas Inspiration demands you pick before you roll. I'm suggesting changing to be like Lucky.

All the clarity of language in the world won't help someone who doesn't read it. And that isn't on the writer.
Sure.

That's why I'm not really advocating for clarity of language. I'm suggesting any and all example backgrounds should be not called generic stuff like "Guard", but as someone else suggested, should be, "Trinxie Bigglebottom, Town Guard" - i.e. a specific name. Combine with with a bold text reminder (maybe put it in a box too!) that Custom backgrounds are default, and we're cooking with gas. But the names will be so off-putting even the dimmest people will FINALLY register that "Oh, these are only examples!".

So it is on the writer. I've had to do stuff like this.
 

nevin

Hero
Having time to read the new UA for 1DD material, here is my in-depth critique. Notice, this is a (-) thread, so feel free to disagree all you want. :)

//// BEGIN RANT ////

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?

- 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.

- Ardlings. No. Just no. Buy hey, with Angelic Flight I can finally have a pig-PC who can fly.

- 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...).

- 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

- Elf. Wow, no small elf, either. I'm seeing a trend here... 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.

- 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!

- 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.

- 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.

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!!!) 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!"

- Feats at 1st level. Great! All for it. But again, why tie it to Background?

- Two skills, one tool, one language. Pretty standard stuff.


FEATS
Level requirements? Really? How about trying to balance out the feats instead? Too hard? Oh, ok, then level requirements it is...

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.

- 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!).

- 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 wands and heal-bot PCs!

- Lucky. Let's make one of the strongest feats in the game EVEN BETTER.

- 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...

- 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

- 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.

- 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.

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.

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...

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.

Inspiration
So, something few groups remembered, let alone used, is now "automatic" each day. Just keep upping that power level, WotC... drip, drip, drip...

SPELL LISTS
Took you long enough....

//// END RANT ////

I finally found the words, and they weren't enough.
everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else. The modern desire to make everything equal and fair. Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.
 

Cosigned. I like inspiration as a way to guide the style of play and reward players for playing the game in such a way that's creative and exciting and making the game more enjoyable for everyone. Just getting it because you roll a 20 seems to relegate it to a mechanical reward.

I'm sad to see they appear to want to lean even further into Inspiration. It's that type of meta mechanic - the type that has nothing to do with reflecting the fiction, instead it's "here, have a bennie" purely at the table level - that I'd prefer to see completely excised.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else. The modern desire to make everything equal and fair. Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.
1661374831004.png
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something.

Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.
 



Micah Sweet

Legend
Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something.

Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.
I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie. All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles. What did you see in the film that supports your point?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Nope, it's a re-roll.

Read the text for Lucky:

"Immediately after you roll a d20 for a d20 Test,* you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll."

Bold mine. It's a re-roll, like I'm suggesting this should be. Sure, they're phrasing it as giving yourself Advantage, but that, I'm pretty sure, is a balance measure to prevent people getting "double Advantage" - you obviously logically cannot use Lucky if you already had Advantage on the roll because they're calling it that.

But it's a re-roll, because it's after you roll, thus after you see the number. Whereas Inspiration demands you pick before you roll. I'm suggesting changing to be like Lucky.

I agree with you on the proposed change to inspiration, but I do want to note the Disadvantage part of lucky is BEFORE you see the roll.

I think they all will end up being after the roll though. It is just how the timing of the table works.

Sure.

That's why I'm not really advocating for clarity of language. I'm suggesting any and all example backgrounds should be not called generic stuff like "Guard", but as someone else suggested, should be, "Trinxie Bigglebottom, Town Guard" - i.e. a specific name. Combine with with a bold text reminder (maybe put it in a box too!) that Custom backgrounds are default, and we're cooking with gas. But the names will be so off-putting even the dimmest people will FINALLY register that "Oh, these are only examples!".

So it is on the writer. I've had to do stuff like this.

Okay, I could see that being a way to do it.

I actually like that idea quite a bit. Would be a nice way to get Icons or whatever they are called.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie. All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles. What did you see in the film that supports your point?

What super power does the guy all the heroes turn to to help them have?
 


MGibster

Legend
I'll bite. Can you give me an example where unfairness is a positive in game design?
In Eden Studio's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are different power levels you can build player characters at. You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy. The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters. A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one. Of course there's some balancing going on there. Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while). These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene. And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.

This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.
 


Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
In Eden Studio's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are different power levels you can build player characters at. You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy. The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters. A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one. Of course there's some balancing going on there. Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while). These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene. And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.

This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.
Having never played it I can't comment on the game directly, but it sounds like you are describing a system which is fair but unequal in character powers. Essentially the slayer plays one game and the minions play a different game with different rules and goals along side of them, leaving id assume everyone having a good time.

Unfair would be a system (or portion of that system) designed to have some characters inferior to others in all respects...but still have them engage in the same activities.
 

The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top