New Races
You want a kitty-faced angel who can pop wings? That’s fine. But there’s no reason to not do that for the otherside - puppy-faced devils. But “Ardling”? Why are the “-lings”? Are they from Ard, like Earthlings are from Earth? Is this just an anagram for “Darlings”?
A lot of the other race stuff, I’ll probably ignore. Particularly Humans getting Inspiration every morning.
Speaking of, sincerely doubt I’ll touch these Inspiration rules assuming they survive.
Humans can choose to be Small? Great. “Halflings” in my campaigns are just little people anyway - they don’t have a separate culture.
Languages
Adding “Common Sign Language” is great, but . . . we can do better.
Sign Language and Thieves’ Cant should be dialects of parent languages. I think the system should present that as an option so people can have “Orcish Sign Language” or “Dwarve Thieves’ Cant” if they like. Or other dialects like “Atreides Battle Language.”
(I treat Celestial, Abyssal, and Infernal as the minor dialects of the same language “Supernal”, that is understood and spoken equally well by all of those creature types).
Feats
I guess we’re getting gated and chained feats again? Did that work out well before? I’m skeptical but I’m not that bothered either.
“Tavern Brawler” caught my eye though. That’s a flavorful name for what is “Better Unarmed Fighting + Furniture Counts as Club for You”. Furniture should count as club for everyone. And since that is a Simple Weapon, everyone’s proficient (at least all classes are). So it probably needs something to sweeten it up to be feat-worthy, but I’m not going to fix that now.
The thing I like is that you could have different Feats that are different types of Unarmed Combat improvements. They could be Punching & Wrestling, or different forms of martial arts. Hand-to-hand combat stuff well short of becoming a Monk. And then, let your hands, feet, and head count as a weapon for making an Bonus Action “off hand” attack. (Or maybe that should be a feature for Fighters?)
“D20 Test”
Nat 1 Always fails? Sure.
Nat 20 Always succeeds? Welllllll: always hits in combat, Yes. Always on Saving Throw or Skill Check? I don’t think so. I think it is straightforward to say “Natural 20 Always Critical Hits, But Doesn’t Always Succeed.” Too many edge cases for where you just need enough rolls to get that 20 to show up to do something which ought to be impossible for some characters but as worded will definitely be achieved eventually by any character. To address that you’d need to say this or that is impossible if your strength is under 18, and other things like that.
My Critical Hit Formula:
Double the number of dice to be rolled, but max out the value of one die.
Examples: (Weapon) + (Str Mod)
Normal: 1d8 + 4 | Critical: 1d8 + (8) + 4
Normal:2d4 | Critical: 3d4 + 4
Also applies to Sneak Attack: (Dagger) + (Sneak Attack) + (Dex Mod)
Normal: 1d6 + 2d6 + 2 | Critical: 2d6 + 4d6 +2 = 1d6 + 6 + 3d6 + 6 +2 = 4d6 + 14
My Critical Fumbles since we’re at it:
Roll 1d20
1 Strike self
2 Strike ally (if possible), else self
3-5 Minor injury to self or weapon
limited movement,
fall prone,
AC lowered for one round,
advantage to opponents,
break bow string, head slips off mace, bend sword, etc/)
6-9 Drop/throw weapon
10-12 Drop/damage other item (shield, helmet, backpack)
13-20 Just a miss
Roll a Nat 20 get Inspiration? No.
Idea from someone: Roll a Nat 1, get Inspiration to use on a subsequent roll (not the immediate one)? Very interesting.
Unarmed Strike Options:
If you hit, you can choose to make it a Grapple that succeeds. Hmm. Target can only avoid it by not getting hit. With the same roll against Armor Class. . . . Plate Mail makes you harder to be grappled? Eh, I think that’s a problem.
If you’re Grappled: Grapple them back. Then neither of you can move? Or each of you can move the other, slowly, on your turn so it’s a back and forth? That actually seems a bit realistic?
Edge case, if you try to move or carry target over a 1000’ cliff ledge and drop them (which should be a free action), there should be a saving throw or something? Maybe eat the target’s Reaction to resist?
The grapple contest made sense to me - the target might just too wiley to get ahold of. I’ve - shall we say “encountered” such people - have even been such a person once or twice. I don’t think the streamling is worth the change here.
Hey, maybe Tavern Brawler gets Advantage on Grappling?
(I also wouldn’t mind if Grapple, which isn’t the best choice of phrase not that I have something better, was something that could be advanced in the way that older editions had a bit, but streamlined and more elegant. “Grapple” just stops you from being able to move away from the grappler. You can still attack that person without disadvantage. So they might be stepping on your foot, have a tight grip on your shirt or cape. That sounds like Step 1 to me. Step 2 is I have options. Maybe disarm you? Maybe take some equipment off you, such as your backpack, or your arcane focus? Maybe Restrain you so that now it’s easier for my friends to start hitting you - you know, like in a Tavern Brawl (according to the movies). Or maybe I take you prone (though would have to go with you unless I’m a size bigger maybe).
You can try to escape. You could also try to get back to Step 1, which should be easier than full escape. But, if I, the grappler, gets to Step 3 - - things are now bad. You’re in the Octagon and you are losing, quickly. Now’s the time to burn inspiration if you haven’t already. It’s Choke Hold time. Or maybe I can choose to break the limb(s) I have a hold of (see Hoyce Gracie).
Tedious? Maybe. Dramatic potential? High. Option to win without killing? Nice. Something to do to players that is short of killing a PC? I think that’s a win. Likelihood of being relevant? Depends on your campaign world.
Inspiration
Always lose it at the start of a Long Rest? Perfect for the Long-Rest-Interrupting-DM!
Re-Categorizing Magic.
Instead of Class lists: Three (for now) categories:
- Arcane: Wizard, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer
- Diving: Cleric, Paladin
- Primal: Druid, Ranger
I support bringing back the Druid list as something separate from Cleric. I’m also very much for removing Cure Wounds from Bards. (I’m also for removing Bards in any form since 1E, and I say that as someone who used to play bards a lot).
We’ll have to see how this shakes out for spells beyond first level - Bards with full access to Wizards’ nuking spells is not interesting to me.
Backgrounds
It’s like they’ve taken a half-step to making this really more generic systematically but need to go further, to me.
It gives you:
- Stat boosts anywhere you like (but not the same): a +2 and a +1 OR three +1s.
- Two Skill Proficiencies
- One Tool Proficiency
- One Language
- One 1st Level Feat
- Equipment
I appreciate that they say Build Your Own, please. Do that. But the Samples - we know people are mostly going to use the Samples, they just are. Think about how this is presented to the player. And the samples are contextual - they start to connect to the campaign setting. I think if you break parts of this up further, you might actually be able to do that better, and server character customization better too.
Let’s look at the sample Soldier
SOLDIER
Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Constitution
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Intimidation
Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your
choice)
Language: Goblin
Feat: Savage Attacker
You began training for war at such an early age that you carry only a precious few memories of what life was like before you took up arms. Battle is in your blood. Sometimes you catch yourself reflexively performing the basic fighting exercises you learned as a youth. Eventually, you put that training to use on the battlefield, protecting the realm by waging war and studying the strategies of goblinoid generals.
Regardless of intent, this will become all Soldiers speak Goblin, got +2 Strength and have Savage Attacker, etc. That’s actually kind of useful to a DM where NPCs have this much stuff going on.
But what if we strip that down? The Soldier background should be contextual. The body text talks about “goblinoid generals” so this sample Soldier was in the anti-goblin army. Ask, what are the things that all soldiers would have, or Foo Army soldiers have? Like requirements that if you don’t have, well, you didn’t make it through training? Light Armor proficiency? Proficiency with a couple of martial weapons and armor, say Spear and Shield? (Your Army May Vary). Should all of the Foo Army get +2 Strength? No. Speak Goblin? No. Get the same feat? No.
FOO ARMY SOLDIER
Ability Scores: not part of Background
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, <Skill of Choice or from suggested list>
Tool Proficiency: <Tool of Choice>
Language: <Setting Dependent, Ask your DM> (Or another Tool Proficiency)
Feat: <Feat of Choice, or from suggested list>
Whether you volunteered or were conscripted you served in the Foo army against the dreaded forces of Bar. The training made sure you met their minimum standards for fitness, but beyond that, in this large army, there’s a role for almost everyone. Maybe your other duties including cooking? Or perhaps a talent with pen and ink had you assisting with making maps? Perhaps you were a scout. You might even have entertained your compatriots around the campfire with the Musician feat. Any creatures child will do if the Great Army of Foo.
Thoughts and discussions with others along these lines got me thinking about how much presentation could matter and be improved to help players get invested in the system along with the flexibility in character creation. And I’m not creating this from whole cloth - Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide has this.
Might be spinning my wheels here, but next time I start a new campaign, or add a new party to the existing one, I want to present the players with contextual background options - and if it’s the new D&D, with the ability scores and probably feats disconnected from them, and just part of character origin.
