Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The One D&D project. Thoughts?

Since we semi-regularly take in new players who never tried dnd as some members move or don't have time (usually due to studies or work), I do have to backseat game a bit while they learn. Helping them build the character they want to play, remember class features and what they can do in the game etc. And when people try to use a feature I am unfamiliar with or remember working differently, I make sure to read the feature to try to avoid misunderstandings. I also like to set a few rules at the beginning of an adventure, usually along the lines of "no pvp" and "if your character leaves the party, you need to roll a new character that is with the party". I might also ask why they have let a party member lie there and roll death saves for 5 rounds straight when I know they have both Cure Wounds and Healing Word with spellslots to spare, but that's more about that player not getting to do anything. Things I consider normal tasks for a DM in any game.


"...Since you didn't comment on it, I assume that you are also strongly in favour of them releasing a dedicated forgotten realms source book and campaign setting book, at the same time that they erase all of the lore and flavour from the base handbook/monster manual etc., in order to restore and update what they're erasing? I'm guessing you're looking forward to purchasing those books separately too?..."


It's been a little while since I read the PHB and DMG outside of looking up rules, but I don't remember there being much useful world information about the Forgotten Realms there, beyond that the races are flavored for that setting. I've always felt a need to go to outside sources before using FR, so I think a sourcebook for the setting is useful. Like the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide. I don't remember if SCAG was a good sourcebook, but was is a sourcebook for FR.


"...The best and most effective barbarian's I've ever played with, have both been halflings. They make fantastic Barbs..."


And I would need to see some justification for that. Since we're clearly looking at the basic mechanics very differently, I wouldn't trust anecdotes. Things like average DPR, saves, HP numbers and whatever else you can think of that is relevant mechanically. And this would of course have to be directly contrasted to a more optimal race (like half-orc, shield dwarf, variant human etc.) with a similar build.


"...What lore, exactly, should I be using for Fairy..."


I don't remember all the nuances of the Feywild off the top of my head, but assuming Forgotten Realms, it sounds like you would look to the seelie or unseelie courts. But for One D&D, they have included the "X of many worlds" section, giving some pointers on how they might be in different settings.


"...You don't put the 18 you rolled into your Intelligence "because you spent your early life raised in candlekeep and have been a dedicated scholar all these years", and then also put your +2 into intelligence "because you spent your early life raised in candlekeep and have been a dedicated scholar all these years". That's just... no. That's not legitimate, and it encourages a lack of depth in characters. I don't accept that as fair reasoning..."


Given how ability scores work in dnd, yes, you do. You might give a different reasoning, like "Clarence always found that he took naturally to the study of the arcane" or whatever you please, but fundamentally the problem remains that as long as WotC keeps their ability scores functioning like they have in dnd, limiting them based on race is going to push players to play race/class combinations or be worse off. It used to be even worse for some classes, since the primary casting stat also affect how many spellslots you got or if you were allowed to cast a spell of those levels at all. Add on that you often had to roll through spell resistance using those stats and you really do have a lot of trouble if you go with an unconventional caster. It's not quite as bad now, but still bad enough.

Nothing suggests WotC are even considering giving us a better ability score system, so locking races to specific bonuses is not a good thing if you want to free up players to play what they want.


"...I'll read whatever last word you'd like to have, but I'm stepping out of this conversation at this point..."


Have a good weekend then.



"...On save DC: Save Dc is much harder to raise than attack bonus..."


Keep in mind that effects that target saving throws are often balanced around either "save for half" or "save or suck". Things typically don't have that much HP in 5e (even if scaled up) compared to what player characters are capable of, so constantly taking damage even on successful saves will wear a lot of enemies down quickly. "Save or suck" spells often take away the creature's turn (possibly more than one), which can completely shift the course of the combat. Some spells leave difficult terrain even if the save is successful, limiting movement. Or there is no save at all, like Spike Growth.

A fun example is the spell Dissonant Whispers. 1st lvl, 3d6 psychic damage / save for half. Frightened on a failed save. This thing is insanely good and the safe for half on the dmg makes it almost risk-free to cast it.

Effects that target AC rarely have anything that even comes close to this sort of impact. Warlocks can build their Blast to push or pull for some soft CC, but most everything else uses a saving throw. Battlemasters and Monks requires both a saving throw and an attack roll for some of their abilities. Getting a -5 on your save DC sucks, but casters typically have much better ways to deal with that than a -5 on attack rolls that doesn't come with a bonus. GWM and Sharpshooter is rarely worth using unless you can reliably generate advantage, which is why GWM is a natural fit for Barbarians, for example. Even with advantage, the average return for a GWM Barbarian isn't that huge at lvl 5.

Greatsword +1, 18 str. Extra Attack. Reckless Attack. (ca. 87.75% hit rate due to advantage)
21.06
vs
Greatsword +1, 16 str. Extra Attack. Reckless Attack. GWM (instead of +2 Str at lvl 4). (ca. 57.75%% hit rate due to advantage)
24.255

Same as above, but without advantage:
15.6
vs
14.7


Targetting AC is more reliable in the sense that a "full success" is a bit more common, but it is generally less reliable than "save for half" damage effects and rarely have the game changing impact of a "save or suck" effect. And casters usually have access to both types of spells, in addition to better utility and support. This is one of the things that makes martial characters (especially ones without any magic or spell-like abilities at all) less useful as the game goes into higher levels (another being martial subclasses for actual casters).

It might be harder to stack a save DC to a higher number than an attack roll, but spells that target saving throws are usually better than attacks or spells targetting AC. So if we want similar "success rates" for AC and saving throws, effects that target AC need to be buffed considerably. Or spells that target saving throws nerfed substantially.

This is the "white room" I keep hearing about, people who think dice probability should dictate how they build games and the people who populate them. Why not just have every encounter be everyone in turn taking a swing at each other, add in modifiers for each spell known, make a computer program that will do it all beforehand and you can roleplay the outcome it came to, that's the game is when you boil it down, just a finely tuned engine for damage output.

So far your only justifications for making ability scores race agnostic is that it lets your players disregard any kind of constraint being a certain race might entail for the purpose of min/maxing your class; the other is that for some reason treating elves as inherently more dexterous than humans is an artifact of racism from the 30s, folklore and fantasy are just the projections of ignorant people after all. Why not just run a Sci-fi campaign, everyone is human, but this fellow's grandparents liked to gene splice in pointed ears. I bet they've made a Mass Effect tabletop game, are Krogans being massive four testicled berserkers also the specter of racism, should stats be race agnostic in space?

You don't trust the math. I don't trust your ability to talk about game balance without it. If you''re not willing to engage with averages and probability when discussing the balance of a game with random elements, you're not worth listening to on that topic.

Regarding "playing against type":

It would be simple enough for a DM to construct a listing of common backgrounds for races in their setting. This would act as a somewhat broadened set of potential racial stat bonuses. A player with a concept that goes against type could then pick a background outside of this list, and easily make a character that is both mechanically sound and consistent with RP.

Or... they could pick one of the common backgrounds and play with a stat spread that is not specifically optimized for their class and role, just as they can now.

A Dm could take it upon themselves to do that, yes (to Dwig), and any DM running a custom campaign in their own world space absolutely would, if they're a conscientious DM, absolutely - or at least to define the way certain cultures exist and how the history of their world ha affected the various races of creature that re found there. However, a default still needs to exist that has enough flavour and soul to play with, for those who aren't ready or able enough to do that, but who still wish to play or run a game with their friends. We don't have a FR campaign setting book; SCAG covered a few cities on the sword coast, but it's not a campaign setting, not like the eberron book, for example. FR takes its cues from the default books - the PHB, DMG and Monster Manuel; those books provide a workable amount of background lore and flavour for the things they describe, and they are then treated as the default for Forgotten Realms spaces (no, it's not the other way around, despite what some people want to claim).

If all of that is removed, then there won't be any lore for the FR to use - so a campaign book for FR itself will then need to be published in its place, and the PHB, MM and DMG will become incredibly dry, soulless books that, on their own, are no longer sufficient for a group to pick-up-and-play with a reasonable setting and background to work in. This was the original intention of the way those initial books were written; technically setting agnostic, but with enough flavour to inform a world space for people just picking up the game; that was a strong thrust of the design. Maybe wizards are intending to do this, so they can sell more book - who knows - but there's been no word of such as yet.

Here's an example:


This block is about halflings in general; it gives a feeling and flavour for what sort of a people they are, by default; it's a setting agnostic description, as it does not mention any locations of world-identifying events... but it provides enough of a picture of this people for new players to get their teeth into and run with. It's not about adventurers, so much as it's about the general baseline for everyday halflings, which an adventurer may be a prime representative of, or an outlier from, as the player decides.

Compare this to a more recent publication, in the 'new' style:


That's it. That's all there is. I can't play to or against that, because there's nothing there to play to or against... I could go to other books (which new players may not own or have access to), and try to build up a picture of this people's default culture and place in the world, but none of them will talk about these fairy people; they're not mentioned anywhere else, at all, because every other source will only speak of other groups of fey, whom this playable race is specifically called out as not being. This one is empty, soulless and dry; there's nothing to really get your teeth into here, and a new player hasn't been given anything to work with to ground this race in a setting.

I do not want this to be the norm going forward, thank you - I would much rather have race introduction pages like the top one; I already know that if they aren't quite that way in my custom campaign space, I'll note that fact, and describe it... but the original block by default has a wealth of flavour for players who do not have something like that in mind beforehand, and that's important. It's not something we should lose.

==

Anyhow... I said I'd give my comments/perspective on Rogue and ranger, so, let's see...

I'm going to jump over ranger for today and go to rogue.. ranger has a lot of other considerations, while rogue has been fairly solid, so I'll do the simpler one first ^.^

Basics:

- Rogues are losing performance as a base skill option, without replacement; no real reason for this and it denies rogues who wish to play face and fake it, or run cons.
- Rogues would lose longswords (which is not finesse), but gain scimitars and whips; this is the result of them gaining proficiency in all finesse weapons regardless of their simple or martial category, and it's also future-proofed such that any new finesse weapons will also be automatically included. This is a pretty decent update.

1st level, we get expertise as usual, thieves' cant and sneak attack.

Sneak attack is... not good. They've restricted it to being specifically an attack that you make with the attack action, on your turn. What this means is that you literally cannot lie in wait for someone, ready to spring down on top of them by surprise with a sneak attack - the very definition of what a sneak attack usually is, and you cannot do it. If you ready yourself, and surprise someone who doesn't know you are there, when they enter the room... no sneak attack, and that's just plain stupid. I understand what the attempt was here - but it would be better done if they limited sneak attack to once Per Round when you hit a creature with an attack. This would still limit you from getting multiple sneak attacks in a round, which is what they want to do, but still allow you to actually sneak attack from ambush, which is what the players often want to do.

They've clarified the conditions but subtly changed the mechanic in the process as well - in the current version of rogue, the alternate condition if you don't have advantage is that our target must be occupied/distracted by something else - i.e. that they have a creature hostile to them within 5 feet. This meant that if your sneak attack target was being harried by a wild animal in the woods, then that would be a perfect opportunity to get a quick sneak attack in. this would no longer work in the new document, as the harrying creature must specifically be your ally, not just something hostile to your target. I disagree with this change too; the point is that your target has more to consider and pay attention to, not that you have a friend near them. It shouldn't be restricted in this way.

Thieves Cant has been... blandified. It's just treated as a basic language here, and we've lost any description for what it actually is. I'd have preferred more flavour for using thieves' cant, not less. It was always a niche ability, and I could see it being entirely reworked to be more accessible and more useful more often - just removing its flavour and side mechanics doesn't actually do that, in my opinion. More should be done with this.

At level 2, cunning action is more or less unchanged, but the small changes to hide will have a knock-on effect here. One change that has crept in here is that the existing stipulation that you can only use your cunning action in combat has been removed. I'm fairly certain that most tables ignored or weren't aware of that to being with, though. I'm on the fence; cunning action is supposed to represent quick burst and sly shifts - using cunning action to sprint faster than the barbarian across long distances wasn't ever is intended purpose... but I'd be lying if I tried to say I haven't used cunning action for extra dashing in non-combat situations before.

5th level, Uncanny dodge is largely unchanged too, saving only differences in the terminology as they change it. No improvement, no detriment.

Our next shot of expertise has moved up to 7th level, from originally being at 6th - though this is to make way for a change in subclass features, so the value of that change will depend on your subclass.

Shuffling down, Evasion has been moved from 7th level out to 9th level, which honestly hurts a bit. They've update the wording to specify that you can't use your evasion if you're incapacitated. This makes sense, and I approve of the definition restriction, but the level shift hurts.

The shuffling of levels has meant that you're now getting a subclass feature, and an ASI/Feat, at the same level - this is something that they've usually tried to avoid, so as to never swamp or overwhelm the player with too much at once, and to make sure they always get something nice each level. I'd caution against them doing this here - of finding another way to arrange things that doesn't give two big things at the same time - but they've created extra features to the point that there isn't anywhere else to shuffle this anyway.

Reliable Talent, at 11, has had its wording tightened up, which results in a small restriction - it's not one that's liable to come up often, but it can do in the case of multiclassing, and in terms of future-proofing, so I'm not entirely sure I agree. Currently, Reliable talent lets you treat any roll of less than 10 on the die as a 10 on the die, if it's an ability check you add your proficiency to. The new document narrows this down to skill and tool checks that you are proficient with - which knocks out any other ability check that isn't a tool or skill check, and there are some side cases that grant you the use of proficiency for those. This is niche, and it likely won't be noticed too much either way... but supposing a new feature from somewhere grants a class or subclass proficiency on initiative checks, or on flat ability score checks in particular circumstances, reliable talent will no longer work for those.

We get a new feature at 13th level, which is replacing Blindsense, the existing 14th level feature, which has been entirely removed. the new feature that replaces it is Subtle Strikes - it's not anything new or interesting, and doesn't really add any flavour tot he class - it's just a mechanical improvement on what you already have, namely that if the alternate conditions for your sneak attack are met, you also now get advantage anyway. More notable is that this means that you can always have your sneak attack as long as you're attacking something next to an ally, regardless of your own condition, since this auto-advantage will cancel out any disadvantage you have, and the secondary sneak attack condition will be met regardless. This is a powerful perk, but it's also, to me at least, a very boring one. I don't like it, thematically, despite its potency. I'm also not happy about losing blindsense; the existing perk is another way to negate disadvantages and ensure you can get your sneak attack, but it's more interesting, and has more flavour to it than this one, even if it's not quite as powerful.

Slippery Mind at 15th has been buffed to include Charisma saving throws as well as Wisdom. I'm not sure of the justification, but I won't say no to an extra saving throw proficiency. This gives rogues proficiency in all mental saves, and a rogue that uses a feat to pick up resilient will have 5 out of 6 saves proficient, which isn't half bad.

Elusive comes in earlier, at 17th, now, instead of 18th level in the current rules. It's unchanged, however. The earlier level here is to make room for the capstone changes.

Similarly, Stroke of Luck now comes in at 18 instead of 20, and it's received a substantial buff! Currently, stroke of luck lets you turn a miss into a hit, or a failed ability check into a 20 roll (which should be a success, since your DM shouldn't generally be asking for a check from you if success isn't possible to begin with). the new wording uses their new terminology for a 'd20 test', which means by proxy that this perk now also includes Saving Throws, which it does not currently do. An even bigger buff here is that it lets you turn the roll into a 20 on the die, and the new 'test' terminology includes attack rolls... so this ability functionally lets you turn a missed attack into a critical hit, at will, once per short rest. This is a MASSIVE buff to an already strong capstone feature... it's a buff so great that I'm actually quite leery of it... other classes have exceptionally weak and underwhelming capstone features (like bard, for example), and they haven't buffed those or made them even particularly satisfying... so I'm leery about them buffing one of the already very strong capstone even further.

Finally, at 20, we get an epic boon now, as part of the new push they're making to try to make epic boons more visible and potentially more used at high levels. I'm pretty okay with this, honestly. I like the idea.

So, all up, core Rogue hasn't changed too much. It's mostly restriction and reductions, though, with a few dangerously over-strong buffs in specific places. They've shifted perks around, and in most cases this means getting familiar perks later, and new ones sooner.

The subclass we have to look at is Thief, and I'm genuinely quite unhappy about what they're doing here. Thief is a subclass close to my heart, for its flexibility and interesting applications that don't require a major character investment in its aesthetic unless you want it to. It's always been a subtle but reliable subclass with a lot of flavour hooks. So, what have we got?

Fast Hands: The new document gives Fast Hands the Search action, which is an extra thing it couldn't do before, however, it's had its other elements heavily restricted to compensate, and I'm not convinced the trade is worth it. In the current rules, you can use your cunning action to make any kind of slight of hand check that may suit (including picking pockets, but also including many other possibilities), and also to use objects - this includes environmental things, like pulling levers and so on, but also includes using other items from your kit, such as ball-bearings, alchemist's fire, caltrops, or any other non-magical item that would otherwise take your action to use.

The new document restricts this; using items is gone entirely, and the slight of hand check is exclusively for picking pockets now, and nothing else. It also doesn't allow for alternate ability checks as the current feature does - if, for example, it's a simple but stiff lock, and the DM would ask you to make a Strength check with your thieves tools to open it, you cannot do that with the new Fast Hands, but you can with the current one. Giving Fast Hands the Search action does not, in my opinion, make up for this spread of utility nerfs to the feature.

Second Story Work: They've formalised the first section as giving you a climbing speed - this is effectively what the current ability does, so clarifying this into formal terms is a positive thing. The other part of this is dependant upon their ridiculous jump-as-an-action rule, in the same document, and we've already covered that that is stupid as balls. I disagree with replacing the strength in jumping entirely, that said - no amount of acrobatic flips is going to help you jump across that thirty foot chasm any better. Making long and high jumps is athletic and requires strength. A Dm might rule that Dex is appropriate if the specific circumstance allows for it (such as there being walls and other structures for you to utilise in place of raw force of leaping), but that's circumstantial and cannot be placed into the universal base rule. I felt the same about the feature in the current rules too, but it's a much more subtle effect there, and can be folded into the art of good body movement, since it's not replacing using your strength for the jump. Adding is better than replacing in this case, and I think they should stay to that principle.

Supreme Sneak has been brought down to 6th level, from 9th, and it's been buffed - or rather, the restriction it currently has has been lifted. Currently you gain its benefit as long as you don't use more than half your movement; this did get a little bit hairy to be sure about with different movement speeds (If I have a land speed of 30 and a swim speed of 60, and I run 20 feet to the water and dive in... do I have advantage on my hide check? I've used more than half of my land speed, but less than half of my swim speed, and I'm now swimming... It's not entirely clear). The new version removes that caveat, and adds in a different one (can't be wearing medium or heavy armour) - which literally no 6th level rogue is EVER going to have to think about anyway, so it may as well functionally not exist. It's an odd stipulation - I'd rather they remove it, or put in a stipulation that's more of a clear trade, one way or the other. No-one with six levels in rogue will be wearing medium or heavy armour, and the odd cases where you do find t, it'll be a character choice, and presumably somethig that that specific character is practised in, so... it probably shouldn't apply to them either. Something more tangibly rogue appropriate that is an actual choice the rogue might make turn to turn would be better here, I think.

Now here's the bad one:

Use Magic Device.13th level UMD for thief rogues is, for many players, the real meat of why they want to play a thief rogue - the ability to attune or use magic items with race/class/level restrictions opens up a world of interesting and fun possibilities and options, and entrenches thief rogue as the versatile, use-what-you-have rogue archetype - found that very rare staff of fire, but don't have a druid, sorcerer, warlock or wizard in your party (or have a wizard who is full on attunement and doesn't want to swap it)? Rogue can make use of it. Or a rogue who found a staff of healing, and has unwittingly gone from charlatan faith healer into actually legitimate healer and is pondering their life choices now... Loads of fascinating possibilities here.

That's all gone.

The main feature, the sell point poster feature of Thief rogue has been removed.

Instead we can attune one extra magic item, and we're better at spending item charges more efficiently. These are useful, but ultimately boring and dry buffs - it's not giving us an interesting new feature to play around with, or anything with any actual flavour... just mechanical utility in a bland wrapper. the only other concession that we get here is the ability to use scrolls - something covered in full already by the existing UMD - and have to make a check to do so for any scroll past 1st level. It's certainly no replacement for being able to trick and fake magic item requirements. Niara is a very unhappy girl. Hmph. So mad.

Lastly, Thief Reflexes: the current version for this lets you take two turns on the first round of combat, provided you're not surprised - This feature sort of assumes your rogue tends to be good with initiative, which as a dex character they generally will be, but short of extra feats and features, that strong base modifier won't stop you rolling bottom of the barrel sometimes. It's an interesting feature all the same, as it lets you convert the flexibility and utility of the class into real combat effectiveness.

The new document gives a much different feature; proficiency bonus times per long rest, you can take a second cunning action on your turn. Hey, Larian! Pay attention! This is a way that you can give our a second bonus action in a balanced, restricted, yet still useful way. This change likely came hand in hand with their desire to lock down hard on rogues only getting one sneak attack per round, and I can understand that. As it is, it's not bad... but it's also not interesting; it's just giving you more of what you already do, and it's very dry.

In fact, I'm going to make that my take-away criticism of the current direction these class updates have been taking so far: They're Boring!! Numerous restrictions nerfs and reductions aside, they're bland and dry, mechanically noteworthy but completely devoid of soul. They often just give you flat mechanical buffs and extensions on the things you start with, giving you 'more of the same', rather than 'something interesting and new' to play with. I consider this a heavy criticism of the reworks as they are currently presented.

Anyhow, that's my twenty cents on Rogue... what are other folks' thoughts?

The math is an intrinsic part of the game, it's part of the abstraction of how we interact with the world, it's also the only impartial storyteller. That said, I think the question of optimization has an impact on the game, more from how people know it should impact the game, than from how it actually impacts the game. I'm sorry you've had to meet someone on the internet with a different philosophy about the game than you. One thing at least I think we can both agree on, if the player is given a number of ways to build a character, but one is clearly superior than the others, then that is no choice at all, and is a failure of the game's design. I think the difference between us is that, min-maxing a character isn't inherently the goal of the game, unless you reduce it to its mathematical components.

As for Niara's comments. The blandification, great word, of the game's setting and character is strong. So much about D&D is institutional knowledge, any subversion of that knowledge directly affects everyone's ability to use the material, material which in recent years has been somewhat lackluster. I've seen them use 'player agency' as a way to excuse how unpolished some things are, but in the past seven years or so, the player base has ballooned without WotC really giving the newbie a truly comprehensive primer in campaign building. Something that One D&D might end up doing, when they eventually get to the DMG.
Without commenting on minutiae of the playtest, I would've liked to see WotC revamp skills, which would have happened with the Rogue, and maybe make it so not all the classes were designed combat-first.

I'd also like now, to know how the new background rules will interact with Fairy PCs.

I have to say, the lack of a default setting in D&D does honestly kind of annoy me. Having gon through the player's guide and DM's Guide, it bothers me that the game tries to have it both ways, not giving a default setting and working on the assumption that you're going to create your own, yet still talking about everything as though there were a default setting. Most games I've interacted with have a defined setting, and the ones I've seen that are actually setting agnostic don't make the kinds of player-character assumptions D&D seems to. There's clearly an assumed setting at play, but the books dance around telling you what it is and leave all the hard work of actually world-building to the DM. And yet it still makes assumptions that, if a DM doesn't want in their setting, they then have to do the work of adjusting out.

It looks like rogues lose proficiency in hand crossbows. Since they are making us lose racial weapon proficiency as well, this makes me very unhappy.

Steady Aim appears to be gone as well, for someone like me who frequently has crap dice rolls in combat, this is going to hurt a lot.

Sneak attack change is painful and stupid. Like you said, this needs to be changed to once per round. Also changing the wording to it having to be an ally within 5 ft of the target is bad.

The evasion level change is horrible.

Losing Blindsense seems weird but maybe it will be added back in for some subclasses. I have never played rogue levels past 12 so not sure how much use it actually gets at most tables. It could be that many people didn't see a need for it.

I have only ever played Arcane Trickster and Scout so I can't speak for the changes to Thief, but from what you mentioned they seem pretty bad.

Losing Performance doesn't seem nearly as bad as the rest of what they did because they thankfully left us the ability to build custom backgrounds. Only problem I have with this is that is removing an option that is currently in game and I hate it when this sort of thing happens.

In all, I dislike what they have done to rogue. For me, buffing Slippery Mind and the changes to Stroke of Luck do not even come close to making up for the rest.

Huh... you're right. For some reason I had it in my mind that they were gaining access to all ranged weapons, but now I don't know why I thought that. Losing hand crossbows is a bit silly - though given that they don't mention any ranged weapons in the new document, I'd guess that's a temporary oversight this time. Not that I won't mention it in my own report, just in case, so thanks for pointing that out ^.^

Is it possible that they just have not had their "fluff people" write text for the test material in Unearthed Arcana? Or do they generally release more prose with their tests?

It varies - but this is really the first time we've had a lot of major world and species material thrown to use before release, so it is possible they intend to write more... however, the races they published in the first round looked 'complete' for what they were, and as though they were intended to be a replacement for what we have, which would be disheartening if true. The Fairy block I quoted above is the fully released official information for that race, in its entirety, so I'm not willing to rely on assuming that they'll fill in more flavour between testing and release, without making a point of it.

It's hard to say. Some UA releases have had a lot more flavor than this, but they were significantly smaller in scope. Releasing 1-3 subclasses or some new feats or racial options for testing is going to be a lot less to write out than a new core rulebook, even when released in stages. It wouldn't be unexpected if the full release had a more detailed "X of different worlds" section or similar things that go more to flavor than mechanics in general.

My main complaint about the swap to prepared casting, specifically they cleric/druid type prepared casting (Wizard type prepared casting is slightly different) is that druids and clerics only have this type of casting because they have effectively outsourced part of their spellcraft process to an outside power. I feel like this fact has been forgotten. Not all the classes can or should have cleric/druid style prepared casting. I'm fine with it being given to ranger, and actually I'd be fine if it was given to warlock as well, but if bard is going to be made into a prepared caster, it should be wizard type prepared casting (complete with the ability to scribe new songs to gain new spells outside leveling), not cleric/druid type.

I'm far more concerned about the condensed spell lists, but only because of how badly it affects bard, which has traditionally been a non-specialised caster.

Hey, just a reminder, the second round of onednd is now open for feedback, so go and give your feedback directly to wizards, so they can actually do something about it.

Link

I can taste the balance dripping from these rules and it is supremely unpalatable.

My thoughts? Honestly? I will refuse to play DnD 5.5. It is true that DND 5.0 has as an optional rule you can change the stats in race, but that is very optional rule and up to GM. In Baldurs Gate 3 you can not change stats in race as it should be!

I can forsee that many will stick to DND 5.0 or play Pathfinder. If a GM suggest to me we will play DND 5.5 then I will refuse to play and that thought is shared by many!

In Pathfinder 2e your ASIs come from a combination of your ancestry, background AND class. It's more involved than 5e, but with a little less emphasis on roleplay and a lot more on crunching stats.

While I'm not totally sold on the P2e character creation as a whole, I think having your ASIs come from both race and background is better than one or the other. I personally would also add more than one to pick from, so you would be picking from a selection for both race and background to create your increases.

No. In Patfinder 2 the RACES does give:
your Ability Boost = +2
Example if your Ability Boost Strength
then:
Strength (+2)

Well and also in Pathfinder you get hitpoint from your RACES.

In DnD 5 if GM say so then Races does give Ability. That you can change the ability for races in DND 5.0 is a very optional rule that many GM say no to and in PC game BG3 you can not change the Ability from races.
[bIn Patfinder 2 Races does give Ability.[/b]
That means race does mean a lot indeed. Background in DnD 5.0 does give skills and some other maybe.

I must say I am not a fan of DND4 system really (Dnd 5 is also much more easy to learn for new players then DND4), but I did play 1.5 year with my PC as computer game Neverwinter MMO that is DND4.0 mixed with Action Combat system. Pathfinder 2 is not easy? Perhaps, but it reminds a lot of DND 3.5 and anyone that has played DND 3.5 will have more easy to adapt to Pathfinder 2.

I think Dungeons Dragons 5.0 and Pathfinder 2 are both excellent. However this The One D&D project does not sound good at all since races really never do not matter for Ability. It sounds like me and many other will never play the One D&D project system at least if it is not computer /console game.

I have had long break from pen and paper playing for years.
That said currently I play once/week on weekends pen and paper Dungeons Dragons 5.0 through distance play using Discord voice system and ROLLD20 system for map, character and monster tokens and roll dice. Distance play has also become more popular due to COVID 19 risk and more easy to find enough players for the group specially if you want 6 players+GM group and many want at least 4 players+GM.

No, I've read the PF2 character creation process several times, and it clearly lists ability boosts coming from your ancestry, background, and class, to be tallied up at the end of character creation, which creates your stat spread, because the default character creation mode is to start with everything at base 10, and rolling for stats is now the optional rule.

Well yours version or any GM Pathfinder 2 that says races aka ancenstry it is same thing does not matter in ability scores my answer is I refuse to play that system.Well and if you did not understand. Ancenstry in Pathfinder 2 means what race.


If you type on youtube the Pathfinder 2 races the very first hit that is popular is this video:

Which Ancestry Should You Play in Pathfinder Second Edition?

The video crystal clear explains races=ancestry in Pathfinder 2 and how they affect ability scores in Pathfinder 2.

Strictly speaking I have never played Pathfinder 1 or Pathfinder in pen and paper and only in computer games.
Of Dnd pen and paper I have played example DND 3.5 and DND 5.0 and currently I play once/week DND 5.0 and we do not have any crap system races can not affect stats which is very optional system in DND 5.0. It is much telling what can be popular if the most popular video the first that pop up is that video if you type Pathfinder 2 races in youtube and according to that races does affact abilitys scores in Pathfinder 2.

I am very pleased Larian does have so you can not change ability scores for races in BG3. Thank you Larian.