The latest UA, the first to detail the big revision changes coming in 2024's Player's Handbook, have got a lot of people talking. Some are vocally very, very angry with them (this being playtest material, on one hand, I think it's a bit early to get mad. Granted, usually things don't change all that much, but remember that the 2014 PHB isn't going away, and there are people who still play 2nd Edition).
My thoughts have been mostly positive, actually. I love the idea of level 1 feats (and that these feats are limited to a curated selection) and making backgrounds more impactful (though switching ability score bonuses to them is really only a semantic change) and prioritizing custom backgrounds. Also, two of the options, Farmer and Laborer, are very nice proletariat additions whose absence was baffling (though of course, with custom backgrounds these are just examples).
However, while all the race and background stuff was big, I think the easiest part to overlook in the UA, and the one that might wind up having the biggest impact on the game is the Rules Glossary. This defines a lot of terms, but importantly, the definitions include some changes to how those rules work.
To start, a clarification, as I understand it: the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists should not be misconstrued as class spell lists. These are simply another tag, like the spell's school of magic, that can interact with other features, such as the new version of Magic Initiate. Until we get details on class updates, we should assume (and indeed playtesting this new stuff assumes it) that classes retain their old lists - meaning that Bards and Sorcerers are going to have access to different spells, despite both being "Arcane" classes. And class lists will, presumably, not be limited to one category or another. While Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Wizards won't get Cure Wounds, Artificers and Bards, we can assume, will still be able to pick them up.
But I think a subclass like Divine Soul sorcerer might, for example, be able to pick up any Divine Spells, rather than calling out Cleric spells specifically.
Now, let's get into the other things.
Tool Proficiency has had its rules clarified. Tools are a cool concept, and a big part of the Artificer class (which I hope will see print in the new PHB to allow it to get new subclasses in other books). Essentially, tools (which include gaming sets, artisan's tools, and musical instruments) aren't tied to any specific ability score, but if an ability check doesn't have a skill proficiency associated with it, but does use the tool, you can add your proficiency bonus to the check. However if it does use a skill - for example Performance to draw attention from a crowd or earn the favor of a noble - as well as a tool - for example, a lute - that you're using, you get advantage on the check. Here's where the wording is a little ambiguous. It says you benefit from proficiency from both the skill and the proficiency (if you have both,) which would seem to imply that you have both advantage and, essentially, expertise. I'm not sure if that's the intended meaning - especially because a Bard with Expertise in Performance would get to triple their Proficiency bonus and get advantage (my friend's Goblin Bard in my Ravnica campaign would thus get a bonus of +21 with advantage - he has a 22 Charisma - which is a bit insane.)
I like that this makes the use of tools a bit clearer - there's been some confusion, for example, over whether picking a lock is a Sleight of Hand check, etc. I'd say it's probably just a Dexterity check, but it involves Thieves' Tools and thus can benefit from that proficiency. Picking a lock quietly, though? That could involve both (though as DM I'd set a higher DC).
D20 Test is a useful term so we don't have to constantly say "attack roll, ability check, or saving throw." I think the term is totally fine, though I've seen people complain about how it sounds (though I think people just like to complain.)
The big changes here are threefold.
The first is that they're embracing the idea that a natural 20 always succeeds on a test and a 1 always fails. A lot of people already play this way, and a lot of players assume it's the case. I actually love it, personally.
Here's the thing: DMs should only call for a check if there's some chance of success or some chance of failure. If someone goes up to a cliff face and says "I want to try to punch the cliff apart to make a path," you are fully in your power as DM to say "No, you can't do that."
The caveat here is that players need to understand that it is not their place to call for rolls. If you decide to go to the emperor of a continent-spanning empire and demand that she abdicate the throne and give it to you, you cannot then roll your own Charisma (Intimidation) check and claim that you're emperor now because you got a natural 20. The DM has the right (and responsibility) to say that the emperor cannot be intimidated in that way.
Nat 20s and Nat 1s are meant to represent an extraordinary moment. It could be a spark of genius by an otherwise simple-minded character, or it could be an absolute expert totally eating shit at the thing they're best at (other than a high-level rogue, whose reliable talent is all about preventing said shit-eating).
This already works in combat, and I see no reason why not to use it for all d20 tests.
Ok, now the second thing about d20 tests: Critical hits.
Here, I'm sympathetic to those who don't like the change, though I think we need to wait and see to get the full picture. This change is, itself, multifaceted. First off, only player characters can critically hit. This, on its own, is a pretty massive nerf to monsters, and makes effects like paralyzation a lot less scary. Apparently the plan is to lean into things like Recharge abilities as the randomized, big, "scary" abilities for monsters. I think this sort of change is very welcome at low levels of play - I don't want to fully kill a level 1 character with an unfortunately-timed crit. (Playing the House of Lament, a friend came a session after we started with her Yuan-Ti Bard. In the first combat of the adventure, we faced a group of Gremishkas in the basement. The Cleric cast Faerie Fire (a perfectly reasonable thing in most scenarios) that caused two of the Gremishkas to turn into swarms, who then crit the bard before their first turn in combat and insta-killed them. Which was hilarious, but also not ideal from a gameplay balance experience.) Still, this is one of the scary dangers of combat. On top of that, this change would make things like adamantine armor and the Grave Cleric's Sentinel at Death's Door worthless.
Really I think that this is mostly just an issue at very low levels.
The second of three change to crits (yeah, the d20 test section is a big deal) is that only weapon attacks and unarmed strikes can crit. Even if a spell uses an attack, like Guiding Bolt or, I believe, an Artillerist's Force Ballista, it doesn't crit on a nat 20 (though it will hit any armor class as it always did). Given that Eldritch Blast is likely becoming a class feature rather than a spell, it might be an exception, but for other spell-attack-based gameplay (such as the Artillerist) this is a pretty mean nerf. However, the other thing that's easy to miss is that this is also a huge nerf for Paladins and Rogues, as it's now only the weapon damage whose dice are doubled. One of the best things about Divine Smite is that you can wait to see if you hit or not before you choose to smite, and thus you can wait for a critical hit to do utterly massive amounts of damage. Having played a paladin through about 3/4 of Curse of Strahd, I can honestly say the most satisfying thing in D&D combat might be smiting on a crit. This would prevent that.
So yeah, this is the part that I'm not really on board with. Yes, player damage is pretty high, and this could potentially rein in some of the insane burst damage of a lot of classes. A crit on a Guiding Bolt is a bigger deal than a crit on a Longbow. But crits are one of those things that feel good, and ultimately I think the game should try to make those explosive moments feel really cool.
The final change to d20 tests, though, is one that I'm 100% on board with. Now, whenever you roll a natural 20, you get inspiration, and if you have it already, you can pass it to another player. Again, like I said in the first second on d20 tests, this means DMs will have to rein in players who roll tons of d20 tests unprompted. But this makes a natural 20 feel exciting and fun. It also means that players might feel better about liberally spending inspiration, which is good. Inspiration also now fades after a long rest, rather than at the end of the session, which I think is much better. (This is also covered in the Inspiration rules in the glossary).
Phew: that's a big one, and probably the most controversial of the rules changes they're proposing.
Lastly, I wanted to talk about Conditions, which have gotten some changes.
Grappled works differently. The current version says that your speed is reduced to 0 and can't benefit from bonuses to that speed. The grapple ends if the grappler is incapacitated. It also ends if an effect moves the grappled creature out of the grappling range of the grappling creature (or grappling effect), like being blown away by a Thunderwave.
The new version says that while grappled, your speed is 0 and can't change (effectively the same). You also have disadvantage on attack rolls against any target other than the grappler - which is new (and works like being kind of half-restrained). The grappler can also move with you but has the new Slowed condition if you aren't Tiny or two or more sizes smaller than the grappler (so a Fire Giant can easily haul you around, but an Ogre will move slower dragging an elf or minotaur). We'll cover the Slowed condition later. Finally, and this is maybe the biggest deal: at the end of your turn, you can make a Dexterity or Strength saving throw against the grappler's escape DC, which is 8 + their Strength modifier + their proficiency bonus, ending the condition on a success (the other causes to end the grapple are also included.
This is actually huge. Currently, escaping a grapple requires you to use an action to make an Athletics or Acrobatics check to escape. A lot of players I've seen just don't bother and fight on while grappled, especially because the condition doesn't really harm you if you don't intend to move (grappling the Barbarian isn't going to help you very much). Now, players are more incentivized to get un-grappled, but they also don't have to waste a precious Action to do so.
It also provides a way for players (or monsters) to protect their allies. "Tanks" in D&D other than Armorer Artificers and Ancestral Guardian Barbarians don't really have a strict way to use their attacks to make allies harder to hit. This way, your Fighter can grab the monster and keep it focused on them while the Monk pummels them in the kidneys in relative safety.
Incapacitated in the current rules only says you cannot take actions or reactions. Interestingly, I think this technically means that bonus actions and legendary actions are still ok.
The new version includes the ban on actions and reactions, but also says concentration is broken. You're also unable to speech, and you are Surprised - which says you have disadvantage on initiative rolls. That latter seems to also provide a new definition for Surprised.
I wonder if this means we're going to see more features and abilities that relate to the Incapacitated condition. I think one reason the Monk is held back in terms of damage output and survival is the insane power of Stunning Strike. Perhaps changing it to Incapacitating Strike would make it slightly less powerful but thus allow them to have, for example, more damage and (please) a higher hit die (I've seen arguments that Monks should actually have a d12 hit die, given that their whole thing is mastery over their bodies, and honestly? That actually makes a lot of sense to me).
Slowed is a new condition that will presumably see a lot of use.
The condition imposes limited movement - requiring one extra foot of movement to spend on each foot you move using your speed - the wording here being a bit of an elaborate way of saying your speed is halved, though I suppose that this can clear up ambiguities with spells like Longstrider (do we go by PEMDAS order?). Additionally, while Slowed, attack rolls against you have Advantage. Likewise, your Dexterity saving throws are at disadvantage.
This seems fairly elegant and could be a cool effect to work into class features, monster abilities, and spells. As we see with the new Grappled, dragging a creature you've grappled slows you, which covers the fact you can only move half your speed while dragging them, and it also makes sense that you'd be easier to hit and less able to dodge harmful things while doing so. This only happens while you're moving with the grappled creature, of course, so it's mainly going to affect opportunity attacks (and the grappled creature is coming with you, so no worries from them, I assume).
One more thing! Unarmed Strikes are given a somewhat different definition:
First off, it's a melee attack, and covers damage dealing, grappling, and shoves. This is actually a big deal for Monks, as it will allow them to much more effectively grapple and shove using their Martial Arts trait, which allows them to use Dexterity rather than Strength to make these.
The damage is still 1 + your Strength (except for Monks). But you can also choose to do other things.
Grappling requires a free hand (which might actually make using versatile weapons two-handed more appealing) and only works on a creature that is no more than one size larger than you (can't grapple an adult dragon).
Shoving pushes the target 5 feet or knocks them prone - notably, there's no save or contested check here. It just happens if you hit, which could be a huge deal - I want to jump off an airship as a Monk and punch a dragon between the wings, knocking them prone and sending them plummeting to the ground. Again, like grappling, the size limitation is in effect (but hey, that'll work on Young dragons as long as I'm Medium).
A lot of these aren't huge changes, but I think are worded more clearly.
Again, I think the biggest controversy here is about d20 tests and critical hits in particular. I think we're likely to see some iteration on that. But I think most of this could be fun, and I'm eager to test them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment