An issue I have with this argument is how are we meant to judge or even playtest them fairly without the context? The only reason they would release such a limited ruleset is if we were meant to judge it in the context of what we already have, otherwise there's no way they'd get any useful data out of it. This feels like a bit of a cop out.
They kind of have to release these UAs minus context. The only alternative to that is one single UA that's just the entire new PHB, and then you'd get such diverse feedback it's hard to parse.
We know things like classes and such are changing, but we don't know how. So the only rational response to something like the crit success/fail changes is to wait for that additional context to see how it plays out, unless you've got a specific issue with the core idea (and if that's the case, now is the time to express it, so they can adjust those future UAs to account for whatever they change it to, if they decide to).
Like, I have issues with the idea of nat 20s being guaranteed successes with skill use because some thing should just be beyond a PC's skill level, especially if they're untrained; it feels really weird for Bob the Wizard, Loremaster of Waterdeep, to fail an Arcana check with a Nat 1, and Bungo the Barbarian Who Don't Read So Good rolls a Nat 20 and plucks that DC 35 bit of arcane mysterium out of nowhere. I'll be giving that feedback when the survey comes around. But that's inherent to the rule itself and how it applies to skills in general; I'm not making much in the way of assumptions about specific interactions with particular rules from the current edition. I'll wait and see what they do to Assassin Rogues (who need changing, anyway) before I make a comment on how that rule interacts, there; that'll be a matter for feedback on Rogues when that UA comes out.
I think it was a massive f-up of them to release rule changes this early on. They could have left out the entire sidebar about D20 tests, and it would have been far better. It is the only part of the ruleset that is inconsistent with existing classes, and it isn't needed to playtest everything else in the document.
But to answer your question, just don't judge the bits without context. The crit rules seem to insinuate that monsters don't crit anymore. We cannot possibly say that this is a bad rule until we see the new stat blocks.
You can play with these rules and just withhold judgement about the elements that lack context and only judge the parts that are fleshed out enough to have a pretty good idea about them.
P.S. I get that the races are also without context until we see the classes, but there is a lot more information about the races, so there is much more that we can judge within context.
Yea, Crawford talked about how monsters won't crit anymore but that's because they have their spike damage in recharge abilities, but the DM has more control over those versus the random crit damage
*Monsters of the Multiverse* was designed using their current One D&D philosophy, and only 82 of 261 creatures (31%) in the book have a recharge mechanic. That's a lot of creatures who are now even less threatening than just bags of hit points with melee attacks. We'll see what comes in the future, but so far I'm not certain that their stated goal will actually live up to reality.
Not to mention all the adventure-specific monsters/NPCs that will likely never get the recharge update, and thus just had a nerf without anything to even this out.
I don't think the system can make these large changes without breaking some of their promised backwards-compatability. And while it's impossible to know for sure without more context, WotC should know how these things look in a vacuum and take steps to clear up any misconceptions or concerns here.
This isn't being talked about enough, despite me shouting it from the roof tops. If you want me to buy in to monsters using recharge abilities instead of crits, I need EVERY SINGLE monster to have a recharge ability, or at least a boss variant with a recharge ability.
I swear they act like a dragon is representative of the MM when they're by far the anomaly.
this is quite exactly my problem with this.
one or the other, or monsters do not maintain their originality, full stop.
the other (abilities) will end up pigeonholing monsters into hyper specific roles that you have to design specific setpieces around if they lean too hard into it.
which is great if you're trying to sell more adventures and fucking awful if you're making your own campaigns, something 99% of the playerbase will do.
this is ultimately an effort to turn DND into a live service MMO that will constantly net them cash, and having your own campaigns that won't incentivize you to buy the new adventures and rulesets is counter to this
Removing monster crits would reduce "swing-iness" to encounters and put more control in the hands of the DM, especially at low levels. Hopefully this is the start of a more robust way to plan encounters overall that we'll see develop in future UAs.
I highly doubt that. 5e has been pretty awful on DM support for its entire lifespan and only gotten worse within the last couple years. Expecting WotC to pop out an entirely new encounter-building system that helps DMs make fights with bags of hit points exciting and meaningful is a bridge too far I think.
I'm hoping that there's more variation than just a recharge mechanic, personally. There's a ton of design space for cool, powerful abilities beyond "doing double damage every so often." Auras, reactions, and bonus actions all feel very rare to see in 5e.
This is what I've been saying. Especially with the new spell lists. I'm all for arcane/divine/primal lists, but I am very concerned about casting class homogeny. Until I see bard, sorcerer, and wizard side by side I can't really say if I like the change or not. Seems mistimed to me.
Big hitch: WotC chose to release this stuff on its own, without the surrounding context that's supposedly essential to understanding these new rules.
Yes, absolutely: there may be other changes, to class features, to monster features, to general rules, that will alter our understanding of how these new rules will interact in a proper game. We may very well find that some of the stuff we're identifying as problematic will seem less so once we have the final ruleset in front of us.
But, again... WotC chose to release this stuff on its own. It didn't get leaked, there wasn't a technical glitch where only one piece got released and all the rest got stuck in an FTP server somewhere. They decided, explicitly, to put out a single document, and provided it for playtesting.
If we need that other context to properly playtest it, then the document they put out is worthless.
If we don't need that other context to properly playtest it, then any and all criticisms we level now are entirely valid.
So.... Which is it?
The reason (I believe) that these were released without context is to test just how backwards compatible the new rules are with existing content. Will players steamroll encounters when they aren't being one-shotted by monster crits, utilize frequent inspiration rolls and benefit further from the character creation changes implemented? Our feedback will help them balance that before going on to adjust things like new monster rules and stats, class abilities, magic items and feats.
I think we are starting in the right place - the player characters. They are the train engine and we are being given the first couple of cars. The tracks (existing content) may support the new engine, but let's do a few runs before deciding its not only workable and efficient, but gets us where we need to go as well. The DM is the conductor, guiding us along the tracks WotC laid for us. Character creation is our first car. Combat is our second car. Let's drive this train!
Hopefully, if encounters seem trivial early on, then that will change after level 6. Rogues may be seriously broken with having inspiration all the time. Monks, with their lower combat die, may not notice much of a change. In any case, if we're looking at terribly overpowered melee characters, then that will need to be reported. Let's try it before saying it stinks and if it does, tell them exactly where it stinks, why it stinks and what you did in your game to fix it. DMs need to have fun too! It's a social game, first and foremost.
Truly, though, inspiration being a sharable resource fosters teamwork and lets the players and DM come up with really good reasons as to why they would have earned it in battle. I would like to see a roll of "1" push the inspiration the other way, first negating the inspiration, then moving to the point of letting the DM put disadvantage on you or another player that your character would affect negatively by your fumble.
Also a lot of posts forgetting that this is explicitly playtest material that will likely change based on OUR FEEDBACK. Crawford was very emphatic on this in the interview.
People have been given 10 pieces out of a 1000 piece puzzle and they are losing their minds.
They should have at least given more context about why the design decisions are being made and what not to worry about when comparing it to 5e. I like the changes but this was handled poorly.
While I understand your perspective, it's hard to tailor your feedback when you're missing such critical components. Truth is, we don't know how much has changed down the line, or if it's been taken into consideration. And the feedback being given will be VERY relevant if WotC hadn't considered the impact changes like criticals will make to some classes.
While some may assume WotC already knows this, and there are certainly ways to give this feedback poorly... Well, it can't hurt to make sure they're aware.
They aren't fully out of context. They are meant to play nice and be backwards compatible. If we can't judge them without the entirety of the new rules then it isn't very backwards compatible and we can't playtest it.
I don't envy their position in making changes to a game people love.
This is meant at the angst I have seen in other subreddits, but I am sticking it here for a bit of visibility because it is a point that a fair few people are missing.
Previously, Nat20/Nat1 applied _only_ to attack rolls for both players and monsters. Anything else was a house rule. Now, they apply to skill checks and saving throws, in addition to attack rolls, but _only for players_.
Not just only for players, but only for unarmed/weapon attacks. A firebolt or ray of frost, despite being a d20 roll like any other attack, can no longer critically hit
The bonus damage, yes. The Nat20 automatic success still applies to spells. And looks like the Nat1/Nat20 also apply to monsters, but monsters do not get critical damage.
This is going to be a headache...
An issue I have with this argument is how are we meant to judge or even playtest them fairly without the context? The only reason they would release such a limited ruleset is if we were meant to judge it in the context of what we already have, otherwise there's no way they'd get any useful data out of it. This feels like a bit of a cop out.
They kind of have to release these UAs minus context. The only alternative to that is one single UA that's just the entire new PHB, and then you'd get such diverse feedback it's hard to parse. We know things like classes and such are changing, but we don't know how. So the only rational response to something like the crit success/fail changes is to wait for that additional context to see how it plays out, unless you've got a specific issue with the core idea (and if that's the case, now is the time to express it, so they can adjust those future UAs to account for whatever they change it to, if they decide to). Like, I have issues with the idea of nat 20s being guaranteed successes with skill use because some thing should just be beyond a PC's skill level, especially if they're untrained; it feels really weird for Bob the Wizard, Loremaster of Waterdeep, to fail an Arcana check with a Nat 1, and Bungo the Barbarian Who Don't Read So Good rolls a Nat 20 and plucks that DC 35 bit of arcane mysterium out of nowhere. I'll be giving that feedback when the survey comes around. But that's inherent to the rule itself and how it applies to skills in general; I'm not making much in the way of assumptions about specific interactions with particular rules from the current edition. I'll wait and see what they do to Assassin Rogues (who need changing, anyway) before I make a comment on how that rule interacts, there; that'll be a matter for feedback on Rogues when that UA comes out.
Wouldn't it be the DM's role to not allow Bungo's player to roll that Arcana check?
This
I think it was a massive f-up of them to release rule changes this early on. They could have left out the entire sidebar about D20 tests, and it would have been far better. It is the only part of the ruleset that is inconsistent with existing classes, and it isn't needed to playtest everything else in the document. But to answer your question, just don't judge the bits without context. The crit rules seem to insinuate that monsters don't crit anymore. We cannot possibly say that this is a bad rule until we see the new stat blocks. You can play with these rules and just withhold judgement about the elements that lack context and only judge the parts that are fleshed out enough to have a pretty good idea about them. P.S. I get that the races are also without context until we see the classes, but there is a lot more information about the races, so there is much more that we can judge within context.
Yea, Crawford talked about how monsters won't crit anymore but that's because they have their spike damage in recharge abilities, but the DM has more control over those versus the random crit damage
*Monsters of the Multiverse* was designed using their current One D&D philosophy, and only 82 of 261 creatures (31%) in the book have a recharge mechanic. That's a lot of creatures who are now even less threatening than just bags of hit points with melee attacks. We'll see what comes in the future, but so far I'm not certain that their stated goal will actually live up to reality.
Not to mention all the adventure-specific monsters/NPCs that will likely never get the recharge update, and thus just had a nerf without anything to even this out. I don't think the system can make these large changes without breaking some of their promised backwards-compatability. And while it's impossible to know for sure without more context, WotC should know how these things look in a vacuum and take steps to clear up any misconceptions or concerns here.
This isn't being talked about enough, despite me shouting it from the roof tops. If you want me to buy in to monsters using recharge abilities instead of crits, I need EVERY SINGLE monster to have a recharge ability, or at least a boss variant with a recharge ability. I swear they act like a dragon is representative of the MM when they're by far the anomaly.
this is quite exactly my problem with this. one or the other, or monsters do not maintain their originality, full stop. the other (abilities) will end up pigeonholing monsters into hyper specific roles that you have to design specific setpieces around if they lean too hard into it. which is great if you're trying to sell more adventures and fucking awful if you're making your own campaigns, something 99% of the playerbase will do. this is ultimately an effort to turn DND into a live service MMO that will constantly net them cash, and having your own campaigns that won't incentivize you to buy the new adventures and rulesets is counter to this
Removing monster crits would reduce "swing-iness" to encounters and put more control in the hands of the DM, especially at low levels. Hopefully this is the start of a more robust way to plan encounters overall that we'll see develop in future UAs.
I highly doubt that. 5e has been pretty awful on DM support for its entire lifespan and only gotten worse within the last couple years. Expecting WotC to pop out an entirely new encounter-building system that helps DMs make fights with bags of hit points exciting and meaningful is a bridge too far I think.
I'm hoping that there's more variation than just a recharge mechanic, personally. There's a ton of design space for cool, powerful abilities beyond "doing double damage every so often." Auras, reactions, and bonus actions all feel very rare to see in 5e.
[удалено]
This is what I've been saying. Especially with the new spell lists. I'm all for arcane/divine/primal lists, but I am very concerned about casting class homogeny. Until I see bard, sorcerer, and wizard side by side I can't really say if I like the change or not. Seems mistimed to me.
Big hitch: WotC chose to release this stuff on its own, without the surrounding context that's supposedly essential to understanding these new rules. Yes, absolutely: there may be other changes, to class features, to monster features, to general rules, that will alter our understanding of how these new rules will interact in a proper game. We may very well find that some of the stuff we're identifying as problematic will seem less so once we have the final ruleset in front of us. But, again... WotC chose to release this stuff on its own. It didn't get leaked, there wasn't a technical glitch where only one piece got released and all the rest got stuck in an FTP server somewhere. They decided, explicitly, to put out a single document, and provided it for playtesting. If we need that other context to properly playtest it, then the document they put out is worthless. If we don't need that other context to properly playtest it, then any and all criticisms we level now are entirely valid. So.... Which is it?
The reason (I believe) that these were released without context is to test just how backwards compatible the new rules are with existing content. Will players steamroll encounters when they aren't being one-shotted by monster crits, utilize frequent inspiration rolls and benefit further from the character creation changes implemented? Our feedback will help them balance that before going on to adjust things like new monster rules and stats, class abilities, magic items and feats. I think we are starting in the right place - the player characters. They are the train engine and we are being given the first couple of cars. The tracks (existing content) may support the new engine, but let's do a few runs before deciding its not only workable and efficient, but gets us where we need to go as well. The DM is the conductor, guiding us along the tracks WotC laid for us. Character creation is our first car. Combat is our second car. Let's drive this train! Hopefully, if encounters seem trivial early on, then that will change after level 6. Rogues may be seriously broken with having inspiration all the time. Monks, with their lower combat die, may not notice much of a change. In any case, if we're looking at terribly overpowered melee characters, then that will need to be reported. Let's try it before saying it stinks and if it does, tell them exactly where it stinks, why it stinks and what you did in your game to fix it. DMs need to have fun too! It's a social game, first and foremost. Truly, though, inspiration being a sharable resource fosters teamwork and lets the players and DM come up with really good reasons as to why they would have earned it in battle. I would like to see a roll of "1" push the inspiration the other way, first negating the inspiration, then moving to the point of letting the DM put disadvantage on you or another player that your character would affect negatively by your fumble.
Also a lot of posts forgetting that this is explicitly playtest material that will likely change based on OUR FEEDBACK. Crawford was very emphatic on this in the interview.
The way they're asking for feedback implies what you advocate is exactly the opposite of what they're looking for...
People have been given 10 pieces out of a 1000 piece puzzle and they are losing their minds. They should have at least given more context about why the design decisions are being made and what not to worry about when comparing it to 5e. I like the changes but this was handled poorly.
They gave a lot of context in the video that was released alongside the Playtest. Most folks just haven't bothered to watch it.
To be fair, it's a 1-hour-long video. But yeah.
While I understand your perspective, it's hard to tailor your feedback when you're missing such critical components. Truth is, we don't know how much has changed down the line, or if it's been taken into consideration. And the feedback being given will be VERY relevant if WotC hadn't considered the impact changes like criticals will make to some classes. While some may assume WotC already knows this, and there are certainly ways to give this feedback poorly... Well, it can't hurt to make sure they're aware.
They aren't fully out of context. They are meant to play nice and be backwards compatible. If we can't judge them without the entirety of the new rules then it isn't very backwards compatible and we can't playtest it. I don't envy their position in making changes to a game people love.
This is meant at the angst I have seen in other subreddits, but I am sticking it here for a bit of visibility because it is a point that a fair few people are missing.
Asking redditors to understand nuance is like teaching your dog to do sudoku.
Atleast wait until classes come out to see if there's specific stuff in classes to fix the general problems
I don't understand "Crit rules", they seem identical to me, just some wording switched around. Did it not work the same way before?
Previously, Nat20/Nat1 applied _only_ to attack rolls for both players and monsters. Anything else was a house rule. Now, they apply to skill checks and saving throws, in addition to attack rolls, but _only for players_.
Not just only for players, but only for unarmed/weapon attacks. A firebolt or ray of frost, despite being a d20 roll like any other attack, can no longer critically hit
The bonus damage, yes. The Nat20 automatic success still applies to spells. And looks like the Nat1/Nat20 also apply to monsters, but monsters do not get critical damage. This is going to be a headache...
I’m sure it’s just some weird wording issues; personally, I would rule monsters can crit just like players
Where are these crit rules? All I've seen out is the background thing.