shadowoflameth
Adventurer
Some thoughts that are just my humble opinion on some of the hot points that I've seen argument about. With respect to any who disagree, I hope that WOTC gives a serious read to these discussions on the One D&D play testing.
1. 'Removing monster crits is bad for the game'. Agree. I get that death is possible in one hit at level 1, but (In my experience) it is still rare. Critical hits give danger to encounters i.e my 1st level wizard can get killed by a goblin in one shot, but I think that's better addressed by tweeking the death system. Suppose that 0hp. or less makes you unconscious and dying as normal in 5E. Suppose negative half your max is death at the end of your next turn and that only effects calling out instant death cause instant death. By the way, what if the monster takes control of a player character and crits that way? This issue at low levels could also be helped by a minion class of monster that does small damage. Small enough that even a crit has little chance of a one shot kill. There were minions in 4E that usually worked well as fodder and did not slow down play, and what about traps that have a to hit and use a weapon.
2. 'Inspiration is bad for the game'. I find it unnecessary myself, the players are already hard to defeat, but I know many like it. I would have no qualms about playing in a game that had it or making it an optional rule.
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is bad for the game. It is, and for clarity, the UA doesn't say that a natural 20 trumps something being impossible. In my game we call that out in session zero. The wizard with 8 strength is not going to push the giant boulder out of the gateway. I typically say something like, 'You can try but it looks impossible.' Likewise, I rule that a one is a miss or a failure period, but I don't add consequences that are not fun unless the situation specifically calls for it. i.e. 'You're shooting into melee, your target has cover from the other combatants, and you might hit the wrong target if you miss'. I don't say, 'you rolled a one so you shot yourself in the foot.'
4. 'Removing class-based spells is bad for the game'. Agree, but the UA does not say that there will not be class spells, it makes sense for classes to have some abilities that only they routinely get, but the Arcane, Primal and Divine tags on spells could help with the "Why can't I have that spell?" argument. Choices that are iconic to the class should be a class ability. Yes, your sorcerer can choose Wish at 17th level, but a sorcerer getting a Paladin's special Mount takes more than just learning a spell. What would also help is if the worst spell choices were updated to be at least usable. Find Traps should actually reliably find traps. True Strike should not be a worse choice than attacking for two turns, and so on.
5. 'Half races need to not go away?' No, they shouldn't. The mechanic of 'chose the appearance of either race and the abilities of either. but not both' is good and makes intuitive sense. For backward compatibility, I would also say allow the legacy half orc and half elf to be as they are. Using legacy content could certainly be an optional rule.
6. 'The new backgrounds are a mess.' I like that feats are bound by prerequisites, but feats in backgrounds and re-written feats pose some problems with backward compatibility. What if you had a feat at 1st that is no longer legal at that level? What if a feat has been re-written and you already have the legacy version, can you take both? If your background gives you a skill or language that you get from your lineage, can you customize to avoid a redundancy? Instead of nerfing the best feats, I hope the designers focus on making the poorest choices that no one or nearly no one takes balanced at least a little in value. No one takes Weapon Master, or Defensive Duelist, but many like Fighting initiate or Martial Adept. Give the weaker feats value on their own or as prerequisites for new ones, or both. In the current Players Handbook, they take up space.
My two cents.
1. 'Removing monster crits is bad for the game'. Agree. I get that death is possible in one hit at level 1, but (In my experience) it is still rare. Critical hits give danger to encounters i.e my 1st level wizard can get killed by a goblin in one shot, but I think that's better addressed by tweeking the death system. Suppose that 0hp. or less makes you unconscious and dying as normal in 5E. Suppose negative half your max is death at the end of your next turn and that only effects calling out instant death cause instant death. By the way, what if the monster takes control of a player character and crits that way? This issue at low levels could also be helped by a minion class of monster that does small damage. Small enough that even a crit has little chance of a one shot kill. There were minions in 4E that usually worked well as fodder and did not slow down play, and what about traps that have a to hit and use a weapon.
2. 'Inspiration is bad for the game'. I find it unnecessary myself, the players are already hard to defeat, but I know many like it. I would have no qualms about playing in a game that had it or making it an optional rule.
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is bad for the game. It is, and for clarity, the UA doesn't say that a natural 20 trumps something being impossible. In my game we call that out in session zero. The wizard with 8 strength is not going to push the giant boulder out of the gateway. I typically say something like, 'You can try but it looks impossible.' Likewise, I rule that a one is a miss or a failure period, but I don't add consequences that are not fun unless the situation specifically calls for it. i.e. 'You're shooting into melee, your target has cover from the other combatants, and you might hit the wrong target if you miss'. I don't say, 'you rolled a one so you shot yourself in the foot.'
4. 'Removing class-based spells is bad for the game'. Agree, but the UA does not say that there will not be class spells, it makes sense for classes to have some abilities that only they routinely get, but the Arcane, Primal and Divine tags on spells could help with the "Why can't I have that spell?" argument. Choices that are iconic to the class should be a class ability. Yes, your sorcerer can choose Wish at 17th level, but a sorcerer getting a Paladin's special Mount takes more than just learning a spell. What would also help is if the worst spell choices were updated to be at least usable. Find Traps should actually reliably find traps. True Strike should not be a worse choice than attacking for two turns, and so on.
5. 'Half races need to not go away?' No, they shouldn't. The mechanic of 'chose the appearance of either race and the abilities of either. but not both' is good and makes intuitive sense. For backward compatibility, I would also say allow the legacy half orc and half elf to be as they are. Using legacy content could certainly be an optional rule.
6. 'The new backgrounds are a mess.' I like that feats are bound by prerequisites, but feats in backgrounds and re-written feats pose some problems with backward compatibility. What if you had a feat at 1st that is no longer legal at that level? What if a feat has been re-written and you already have the legacy version, can you take both? If your background gives you a skill or language that you get from your lineage, can you customize to avoid a redundancy? Instead of nerfing the best feats, I hope the designers focus on making the poorest choices that no one or nearly no one takes balanced at least a little in value. No one takes Weapon Master, or Defensive Duelist, but many like Fighting initiate or Martial Adept. Give the weaker feats value on their own or as prerequisites for new ones, or both. In the current Players Handbook, they take up space.
My two cents.
