They'd probably do it like gift cards. Basically the code won't activate unless the seller tells them it's been sold.
Yeah, I was thinking about something like this.
I like most of the ONE D&D changes EXCEPT PC only critical hits...DMs need their fun Crits too! *grumpy face*
Yeah taking away critical hits from DMs is a weird one, not sure what their thought process is there?
I think the intent is to give the DM control over dramatic pacing in combat, so big hits happen at the “right time” instead of accidentally killing a PC. In the past, the DM would fudge to avoid unwanted outcomes and to make sure things happened at the right time.
I can understand wanting to better support the drama-focused style, but I find the implementation questionable. It’s not that crits are PC-only. They are exclusive to PC weapons. An NPC with a weapon, or an identical character that is an NPC would not be able to crit. What happens when a PC is dominated or confused then attacks an ally (and crits)? Seems like needless complexity to me.
Latest round of work on my homebrew system has me working on switching from a Vancian magic system to an mp-based one. It’s had some ripple effects. I had written up bard as a partial caster originally, then I sat down to update it and was lime: that’s not going to work. 
“Fortunately”, I have an extra week (because one of the players forgot we were playing this weekend), so I’m going to be focusing on getting more spells rewritten and cleaning up the layout a bit. I’d like to get things down to one page per class if I can.
It also takes away crits from spells. Only weapons and unarmed attacks get them and then it is only a second roll of the damage.
This is where I realize that I don't remember what the current official 5e rules for critical hits are!
The last DM I played with used house rules for crits and fumbles that let him roll a lot of extra dice. He loved adding more randomness to the game.
I wasn't part of the 5e playtest so don't have any real idea, but I do wonder how much of the originally-pitched 5e playtest material made it into the final version. I know Warlocks were INT casters in the playtest and got pushed to CHA instead and there were loads of other changes. There's an hour-long interview with Jeremy Crawford where they go through the new playtest stuff in some detail and he specifically says they wanted to experiment with this stuff and see what people thought, and I'm guessing that's why we have things like the critical hit change and the worst thing in the packet; a 20 is always a success and 1 a failure. Sure, there's a "don't roll unless there's a chance" thing there, but new DMs have a hard time telling people "no" and are going to allow rolls in dumb situations, and they'll you'll have all sorts of dumb things.
All in all, I like the direction D&D is going, but, yeah, not a huge fan of the crit changes, and a 20 is never going to be an auto-success on a skill check at my table.
Yup I wouldn't be surprised if these crit changes weren't dropped or heavily modified. Honestly of all things to change crits always seemed fine in 5e.
This is where I realize that I don't remember what the current official 5e rules for critical hits are!
The last DM I played with used house rules for crits and fumbles that let him roll a lot of extra dice. He loved adding more randomness to the game.
My house rules are - you maximise the damage you would normally do, and then you roll your damage dice on top of that. Applies to monsters too. I find it a bit disappointing if you get a crit and then roll really poorly, but this way you're always guaranteed to do some chunky damage.
And it helps get through combat faster at higher levels.
My only dislike is that Inspiration is given mechanically instead of being a reward for good role-playing. (And Humans get one free Inspiration per long rest? They really are scrambling to make it so that humans are the least-interesting race in the setting.)
Does anyone know a good summarized list of the proposed changes? I don't know why but I find the WotC videos uncomfortably smarmy and corporate, and hard to suffer through.
My only dislike is that Inspiration is given mechanically instead of being a reward for good role-playing. (And Humans get one free Inspiration per long rest? They really are scrambling to make it so that humans are the least-interesting race in the setting.)
My group always forgets about awarding inspiration, so I really like there being a built-in way to give it. It's one of those things I try to remind myself to do when DMing and I've been consistently forgetting, so "roll 20, get inspiration" to me is one of the better ideas in the document.
Does anyone know a good summarized list of the proposed changes? I don't know why but I find the WotC videos uncomfortably smarmy and corporate, and hard to suffer through.
Not a summary, but the PDF is 21 pages. Don't even need to read it all; the quick scan of the races and backgrounds give you an idea of where they're headed. While I'm sure there are summaries somewhere, most of them are going to histrionic ranting about how WOTC is ruining everything even though it's a playtest and most of it won't stick.
I think it would be interesting if rolling a natural 1 gave the GM inspiration, which they could spend to amp up the danger and risk. Maybe make is negotiated such that you can avoid the automatic fail, but the GM gets to bring in something later.
However, I’m not sure it would be very popular. D&D has been pretty resistant to any attempts to add mechanics like that (e.g., the negative response to skill challenges and the general disregard for social mechanics).
Thanks, that's what I needed!
Hmm, I'd heard it was supposed to be tweaks, but it looks more like they rewrote stuff from scratch. Removing crits from spells.. I mean, I guess, but why? And no crits for NPCs seems fairly goofy, and when polled earlier tonight my players unanimously hated it.
I like a lot of the detail removal to character generation, and explicitly just saying "make up any background you like, here are examples". And while having every PC race have the same speed is a bit samey, it's probably the right move. But I'm not a fan of how much they hand out cantrips and spells as racial traits, instead of flavorful thematic stuff like dwarven resilience, adrenalin rush, etc.
But the inspiration change surprises me most. The reworked version has nothing in common with the current one, so effectively they've removed Inspiration entirely. And added an unrelated reroll mechanic, because double damage and automatic successes weren't enough to make 20s feel impactful? I have no idea what the idea was there.
I literally never remember to use inspiration, so to tie it in mechanically means I might actually remember to allocate it. I'm not so keen on the current ideas, but I DO like the idea of somehow putting it somewhere in the rules where I might actually remember to make use of it.
The way I did inspiration was that I asked at the end of every session, "who do all of you think was the most valuable player tonight?" That's what I did. I felt it encouraged players to engage with the scenario instead of just reacting.
I think that part of it is that "Everything is better than playing a Human, so we'll give this one arbitrary advantage to humans," instead of trying to actually balance them.
I wasn't part of the 5e playtest so don't have any real idea, but I do wonder how much of the originally-pitched 5e playtest material made it into the final version. I know Warlocks were INT casters in the playtest and got pushed to CHA instead and there were loads of other changes.
I was in the 5E playtest, but I wasn't a very dedicated player and I don't clearly remember what changed from that long ago. I think the warlock change felt like the biggest change between playtest and release to me - certainly it was the one I disliked most.
the worst thing in the packet; a 20 is always a success and 1 a failure.
I'll admit it's been a few years since I last played, but I could have sworn that had always been the rule. Maybe it was just a house rule that I never realised wasn't RAW.
(checks PHB) No, that is standard 5E. So what's the change here that people are complaining about?
Are they talking about skill checks, now?
-BEP
MilkmanDanimal wrote:I wasn't part of the 5e playtest so don't have any real idea, but I do wonder how much of the originally-pitched 5e playtest material made it into the final version. I know Warlocks were INT casters in the playtest and got pushed to CHA instead and there were loads of other changes.
I was in the 5E playtest, but I wasn't a very dedicated player and I don't clearly remember what changed from that long ago. I think the warlock change felt like the biggest change between playtest and release to me - certainly it was the one I disliked most.
MilkmanDanimal wrote:the worst thing in the packet; a 20 is always a success and 1 a failure.
I'll admit it's been a few years since I last played, but I could have sworn that had always been the rule. Maybe it was just a house rule that I never realised wasn't RAW.
(checks PHB) No, that is standard 5E. So what's the change here that people are complaining about?
It's not standard; it only applies to attack rolls. A 20 on a save or skill check is purely a 20 + modifier, and 1 is the same. Essentially, somebody trying to save a DC 23 DEX save with a +1 is always going to fail, as that nat 20 is a 21. On skill checks it's awful, because it's really only going to be used to do stupid sh*t for CHA checks, and "I convinced the long-tenured Captain of the Guard to betray the king", "I convince the shopkeeper to give me that legendary item for free", and "I WILL actually f*ck that dragon" are going to be in play. Inexperienced DMs will be bullied and/or convinced to allow rolls, and 20 becomes HA HA I BREAK YOUR GAME garbage.
20s and 1s are only special on attacks, nothing else.
What's got me curious is how they're handling feats. I'm happy they seem to be decoupling them from stat upgrades. Level prerequisites for feats are new, and seems fine as far as it goes, but I hope they don't go too far in the Pathfinder direction of convoluted feat trees. I also hope they're able to find better ways to balance "flavor" feats with mechanical / combat feats.
Man, the change to 1/20 and skill checks is completely bonkers if you think about it for two seconds. The only effect of the change is to require the DM to tell players when an action is impossible, even if their character has no way to know that.
After all: for typical skill checks, where success and failure are both possible, the proposed change does nothing (since a 1/20 would already fail/pass without the change). And for trivially easy actions where failure is impossible, the change still does nothing since there's no need for a skill check. So the only case actually affected by the change is when the player is trying to do something impossible, and the only effect of the change is that now the DM must just say it's impossible, instead of letting the player roll.
Or consider how stupidly the change breaks under hypotheticals. Suppose there's a heavy door that requires a DC 25 strength check to open. Under this proposed change, the party's goliath barbarian (STR 20) and a passing housecat (STR 3) have exactly the same odds of opening that door. Huh?
Honestly. One wants to assume that a lot of thought went into these changes, but it feels like some of them are just random ideas that somebody typed up without actually trying.
In my experience, the 20-equals-success rule is already in place in most moderately casual tabletop anyway. See: every hilarious YouTube D&D skit where the bard does indeed f*ck the dragon as hinted at above. This just codifies it, and D&D is increasingly catering to a younger and more casual audience where the one in twenty chance of shenanigans is almost a central pillar of the game.
I've never really sweat the details, especially with 5th ed. which is already very modular to the point that optional rules are baked into the DMG. The option to state that certain things are just impossible has been brought up already, and that's how I tend to DM anyway, if the player insists, they can try a roll and I can do a monkey paw sort of success on a 20. Or you can just ignore it and go back to the way things are, house rule it like we've done since time immemorial!
Since I started playing D&D again back in 2008, we've had 9 different people DM and I don't recall any of us having 1s or 20s be auto fail/success on skill checks. I only watched the first couple minutes of that hour long video so I don't know any details besides what I've read here but I don't think any of us would change to make the 1/20 an auto-fail/success, or prevent someone from rolling when there's no way they can complete the task. Them failing the roll, especially when they roll real high, lets the character find out through trial (and potentially error) that it probably just ain't happening.
-BEP
See: every hilarious YouTube D&D skit where the bard does indeed f*ck the dragon as hinted at above. This just codifies it...
Sure I get that, but I don't think the proposed change actually affects those kinds of checks.
I mean, for any regular skill check, whether it's picking a lock or seducing a dragon, the DM decides whether the action is possible and they set a DC. Codifying "20=success" doesn't really do anything in regular cases - if the DM decided to do a check then a 20 would virtually always pass anyway, and in cases where it wouldn't the DM can simply not do a skill check.
What I'm saying is that the one case the rule does affect is the case where the player's action is impossible, but you as DM want to allow the roll anyway because the player doesn't know something. Like they're trying to lift a thing that can't be lifted, or intimidate a guard that's actually a statue, etc. Under base rules you do the skill check, then you say it failed, and depending on the die roll hilarity ensues. Under the proposed change, you either don't allow the roll (why?), or else you allow it, but be prepared to say "yeah that new rule about 20s succeeding doesn't apply in this case". Even though it's the only case where the new rule has ever mattered!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad about it and obviously my group can ignore it, etc. I'm just boggling at why Wizards would publish a change that seems to so transparently have no purpose. Maybe I'm missing something, but literally the only scenario where I can imagine the rule affecting gameplay is the scenario where I'd need to ignore the rule.
Something I make sure to make clear up front to any group that I DM is:
1.) The player does not call for a roll. The player describes what they want to do, and I, the DM, tell them what to roll for it.
2.) I, the DM, decide what constitutes a "success" and a "failure."
So if you decide to try to persuade the evil king to abdicate, a "success" might mean getting merely ejected from the court for rudeness instead of thrown in the dungeon for treason, and a nat 20 might mean that the king laughs and says, "this guy's got moxie" and the conversation can continue without further consequence.
My players learn very quickly that when they ask "can I do X," the most dangerous answer they can hear is, "you can try."
Redwing wrote:See: every hilarious YouTube D&D skit where the bard does indeed f*ck the dragon as hinted at above. This just codifies it...
Sure I get that, but I don't think the proposed change actually affects those kinds of checks.
I mean, for any regular skill check, whether it's picking a lock or seducing a dragon, the DM decides whether the action is possible and they set a DC. Codifying "20=success" doesn't really do anything in regular cases - if the DM decided to do a check then a 20 would virtually always pass anyway, and in cases where it wouldn't the DM can simply not do a skill check.
What I'm saying is that the one case the rule does affect is the case where the player's action is impossible, but you as DM want to allow the roll anyway because the player doesn't know something. Like they're trying to lift a thing that can't be lifted, or intimidate a guard that's actually a statue, etc. Under base rules you do the skill check, then you say it failed, and depending on the die roll hilarity ensues. Under the proposed change, you either don't allow the roll (why?), or else you allow it, but be prepared to say "yeah that new rule about 20s succeeding doesn't apply in this case". Even though it's the only case where the new rule has ever mattered!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad about it and obviously my group can ignore it, etc. I'm just boggling at why Wizards would publish a change that seems to so transparently have no purpose. Maybe I'm missing something, but literally the only scenario where I can imagine the rule affecting gameplay is the scenario where I'd need to ignore the rule.
Yep, all this. It reminds me of why I hate Pact of the Talisman so much; you get a d4 for any failed ability check. "Failed" ignores the fact there are partial success and a 15 on an Investigation check might find a clue, but a 23 might find additional clues and a load of gems, and that means the ability is iffy to use. If players are searching a room for a secret door and somebody with a -1 INT announces they're searching and hit a nat 20, well, a 19's not good enough to find it, so I say it's not there . . . or is it there now? If I tell them they don't find one, they now know to move on, as opposed to "we shouldn't have let the dumb guy search" and try a different track, because at my table whoever announces they want to do X rolls, and that's that, it's the check for the entire group.
20s and 1s really aren't that special; I mean, one of them is going to happen 10% of the time. I don't even like the expanded crit thing Pyxi is talking about just because I don't need crits to be game-changing every time because it's just math and I don't want to shift things too much for a 5% chance. Double damage on attacks, that's fine.
As for the no spell crits, I went to D&D Beyond and filtered on "Ranged Spell Attack", and all of them fit on one page, and most are cantrips, so I guess I see the point where spells really don't get much benefit from crits anyways, but, in that case, why change? It's just weird they'd bother.
Honestly for crits probably the only thing I'd think would be a good change is just turning them off for level 1 and 2. For PCs and monsters. Prevents the early level weirdness where squishy PCs can get insta killed by anything.
Probably way too gamey for most though. Minor compared to me wanting to remove multi classing and spell points/levels.
Redwing wrote:What I'm saying is that the one case the rule does affect is the case where the player's action is impossible, but you as DM want to allow the roll anyway because the player doesn't know something. Like they're trying to lift a thing that can't be lifted, or intimidate a guard that's actually a statue, etc. Under base rules you do the skill check, then you say it failed, and depending on the die roll hilarity ensues. Under the proposed change, you either don't allow the roll (why?), or else you allow it, but be prepared to say "yeah that new rule about 20s succeeding doesn't apply in this case". Even though it's the only case where the new rule has ever mattered!
I think hbi2k said much of I mean more succinctly. But I suppose the way I see it, if my players are rolling dice because of a check I've asked them to make, and a 20 is a failure, I've made a mistake somewhere. If it's impossible, I'll tell them so, either at a glance - "That rock is way too heavy for you to lift." - or after trying, with no roll needed - "You give it a tentative pull, but the rock doesn't move, and you're quite certain it won't budge for you." - if they insist, then well, like hbi2k says, "success" comes in many flavours - "A 20 eh? You still don't move the rock, but on the plus side, you successfully don't damage yourself with the effort!"
Pages