this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

OneDnD - 5e UA Material/Discussion

123 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss the playtest content for the 2024 version of 5e D&D, known by its codename OneD&D.

Join our discord! https://discord.gg/dndnext

-- Rules --

  1. Be Civil. Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
  2. Use Clear, Concise Titles.
  3. Limit Self-Promotional Links. External links to blogs, kickstarters, storefronts, YouTube channels, etc, must be related to DnD and posted no more than once every 14 days. Affiliate links are never allowed.

This is a new community and the rules are in flux. Please bear with us (and give your feedback!) as we navigate building this new community. Thank you!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This post is crossposted to /r/onednd here . Please feel free to upvote it there for higher visibility.


This post is a brief overview of my takeaways from running a playtest game which included the latest 1 Arcane Rogue and 2 Monk(Mercy & Elements).There was also a Frenzy Barbarian, rounding out the group to a solid 4 characters, but since the Barbarian’s playtest came and went, I’ll be only touching on them briefly. All characters were level 6

The game was cut a little short, so we didn’t get too much combat in. However, what little we did had a great set of fascinating moments.

This is written mostly from a GM (my) perspective, but I will be peppering in player takeaways wherever I can.

Elements monk = FUN

The Warrior of Elements Monk was a skirmishing speed demon. With the +15 movement speed from their monk feature and the +10 movement speed from their level 4 feat, this character had 55 feet of movement. There was some theory crafting that the max possible speed could be 70 feet of movement, with Wood Elves +5 movement bonus and Longstrider, but that seems like gilding the lily.

But even with just 55 feet of movement, the ability to have 10 minutes of 15 foot ranged strikes let this Monk contribute fully without needing to put themselves at risk. Additionally the ability to make enemies struck move backwards or forwards by 10 feet on each attack roll means that they were able to punt enemies around the battlefield, sometimes chasing targets down on follow up attacks to send them careening 20-40 feet across the map.

This also translated to being able to take enemies that had closed distance to push them well away, before disengaging beyond their movement. Without ever having to spend a ki point on ‘step of the wind’ this Monk was fairly untouchable, and was only ever in melee range of enemies at the beginning of a surprise combat.

Mercy Monk is situational

The Mercy monk had a bit less of a rip-roaring time. The one notable enemy in the playtest so far had poison immunity, which made their lives a bit harder. However, it was agreed that the ability to simply inflict Poison without a saving throw seems strong. Further playtesting will tell, but it feels like a hold-over from 5e.

This monk took the Charger feat, which let them deal upwards of 5d8+Mod(4) unarmed attack damage on a perfect round of combat. If they use their Way of Mercy 1/turn damage boost, this rises to 6d8+Mod(4), which felt hefty and contributed well at the table.

Ranged Rogue feels solid, but not exciting

While the Ranged Rogue didn’t have much time to shine, the new Cunning Attacks combined with Shortbow Weapon Mastery allowed them to trip enemies while reducing their movement speed. This effectively nailed most enemies down to only having a 10 foot range on their turn, making the loss of 1d6 damage feel more than worthwhile when it worked.

However, this simply resulted in the enemies attacking people who had already closed to melee instead. It hemmed me in as the DM, and did force me to attack the party’s preferred frontliners, so it wasn’t without impact, but the rogue player themselves didn’t really feel too excited by their contribution. This would have been better if the rogue wasn’t at the bottom of the initiative, and the most threatening enemies at the very top of the order in our combats, as the Rogue couldn’t delay their turn to go just after the enemy to make sure they were prone for the rest of our melee damage dealers.

Also to be honest, our table isn’t sure what the utility of Disarm is supposed to be. If there’s a MacGuffin, it’s quite clear that it’s a great way to take it off an enemy. But to take the weapon off an enemy has a few problems.

  1. If another player doesn’t use their free object interaction to pick up the weapon, AFAIK the disarmed creature can just pick it up with a free object interaction. This isn’t a new issue, it’s been a problem with Disarm since the beginning of 5e.
  2. If you do allow disarming-and-swiping of a weapon, as a DM I don’t know how to feel about that. For verisimilitude, it feels fine, but from a CR balance perspective it means that I have to contrive reasons why the target’s damage output doesn’t immediately crater, thus throwing off the CR fight balance.

It feels like Disarm needs to have a more well defined mechanical consequence if this will be a common effect achieved by any Rogue player.

Otherwise, the rogue felt like they fell far behind in damage, which is a known issue.

Barbarians have toolkit & a high damage floor

The Barbarian in our group was able to swap between Cleave, Graze, and Topple weapon masteries as required. The end result is that they were able to feel like they were making conscious decisions each round of combat. And even on the round of combat where all they could do was throw hand-axes, they were able to deal an impressive amount of damage on what would have otherwise been an unimpressive turn.

Before factoring in damage die, the Barbarian deals 2d6 (avg 7) Frenzy +2 Rage +4 STr Mod damage on a hit. If they use graze, then that’s a guaranteed +4 if they miss once, raising a single-hit damage round’s damage floor to an average of 17 damage. Simply put, our Barbarian did not feel bad about a single round of combat. This player is typically quite loss averse, and gets annoyed when they whiff on their turn, and they felt like they never had a ‘down’ turn.

Musings on Damage Resistance

One notable fight was with a Water Elemental Myrmidon. The Myrmidon deals Force Damage, and it has resistance to Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing (BSP). The legacy version of the Myrmidons had magical weapons, which specifically mentioned how they pierce through magical resistance to BSP. Also note that none of my players had magical weapons.

It was rated as a medium encounter, and it felt like a medium fight. It lasted 3 rounds, and everyone was able to contribute to its defeat in a number of ways, each player making conscious tactical decisions. The rogue and Barbarian were dealing half damage, while the Monks were cutting straight through the damage resistance. Even though the Monks would be doing less damage than the damage optimized Barbarian typically, they were the number 1 & 2 contributors to the total damage on the creature, and this served as a GREAT spotlight moment for those players.

This made me wonder: SHOULD every martial character get magic weapons that bypass BSP resistance? I could use more datapoints, but this combat came in solidly at a Medium fight by general eyeballing and feel at the table. It didn’t feel like a token encounter to blast through, and while the Monks weren’t lighting the world on fire with their fight contribution in other combats, this one made them feel rather impactful. Additionally, the Barbarian didn’t feel like they were laughing off the damage, and I was able to make sure everyone felt suitably tested without flirting with rocket-tag like I would otherwise have to do in 5e.

I have a theory that could use more testing, but I believe that Damage Resistance is currently an underutilized tool in 5e, and that we should not expect that all Martials will be able to bypass it. Additionally the ability of some creatures to bypass Barbarian Rage BSP resistance seems like a net positive for the game.

Edit: I had forgotten my other takeaway! Full disclosure for this next section, one Monk player is my spouse, and we really workshopped optimizing their Mercy Monk. We tried finding a way to get Weapon Masteries integrated into their build, but none of the options really seemed like a better choice than simply using the d8 Martial arts die.

Weapon Mastery feels vestigial on Monks

The only weapon that can match the d8 in damage output is the Staff, and the Flex mastery that it possesses is incredibly dubious in terms of potential impact. You cannot use an offhand attack with the Light or Nick properties unless the mainhand is Light. So you will never have a moment where you wouldn’t be able to wield a Staff with two hands.

In fact, the only weapon mastery that seemed to have any purpose at all was a dart’s Vex mastery allowing their monk to have limited ranged options while setting up their next melee attack roll with advantage.

Additionally the other monk saw no need to have any masteries whatsoever. The only masteries that MIGHT fit into their kit are Offhand Nick and Vex from a mainhand light weapon, but by level 5 you are lowering your damage of your mainhand attack (necessary to trigger offhand) in order to unlock a +1d4 nick attack. With an average of 2.5 damage, that is a net increase of 1.5 raw damage, which is so little for a lot of bother.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am glad that the elemental worked well in play. I think the increased range with forced movement is really a great ability within combat and will be satisfying for the monk player who wants to focus on battle field control. It makes sense that the weapon mastery felt vestigial since it looks that way numerically. I would love to try these out in game.

Resistance and immunity to non magical B/P/S is kind of annoying to run. At a certain higer level it never matters since all characters will have at least one magic weapon and at lower levels no one will have it. There is a weird window where its important but really makes things uninteresting. I would rather just remove it from the game. I was running an Iron Golem using current 5e rules with a bard in the party who couldn't deal it any damage with his weapons or cantrips. He was key to encounter since he cast faerie fire on it which let the rest of the party actually hit the thing but it was boring for him. Its not a great feature overall

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Resistance and immunity to non magical B/P/S is kind of annoying to run. At a certain higer level it never matters since all characters will have at least one magic weapon and at lower levels no one will have it.

Well here's the weird thing, it does matter because all creatures with resistance to BSP are rated at having 2x the Effective HP of creatures that don't have it, in terms of CR calculation. So every time you pulled out a monster with resistance to BSP and it got trounced by the party who were kitted out to ignore that defense makes perfect sense. The CR system doesn't account for the fact that everyone is ignoring it.

I want to really give this a more thorough shot, by continuing my playtest and not giving anyone any magic items. I want to see how well CR performs with nothing but the baseline class features.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really hope they change the defensive CR rating system for that. Keep it as it's until a certain CR or change it to 1.5 HP.

Dragons feel epic since they have the HP for their CR

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually someone on the discord pointed something out that changed my position on this: There is language in the DMG about raising or lowering fight difficulties by full categories if resistance is or is not present.

I am aware of this language, it includes a lot of other general guidance as well, such as tactical advantages and damage being sustained each round by one side but not the other (it's actually a great way to alter difficulty on the fly without fudging!).

If we just keep that rule of thumb in mind, we can craft deadly encounters, and ratchet them down to 'hard' when the players are able to circumvent the damage resistances. If CR remains as useful as it has for me in the UA playtest, that might be enough to have dramatic and fulfilling combats.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is an easy thing to say when its moved from difficult to hard but there is nothing above difficult. Also what is the point of a CR rule if it stops working after a certain CR. I know flying has a CR limit to its defensive boost so why not resistance to BPS

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My mistake, I meant Deadly to Difficult.

Deadly is supposed to be used as a 'hey watch out buddy!' difficulty rating.

If Difficult is sufficiently dramatic, then it wouldn't really matter IMO. Although I wouldn't be against a 'beyond deadly' category being formalized.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think a beyond Deadly is useful. I know Kobold + club has one listed. But it would nice to have an official one and maybe some adjustments after CR 10 based on resistances \ immunities to magical B|P|S damage. I like them as a world building perspective (means that mobs of commoners can't just kill an high CR beast) but would prefer to have that separate from party CR calculations.

Maybe have an alternative CR with the no magic weapon assumption. These would be identical up to CR 10 which would be the transition from Tier 1 into Tier 2 for a single boss. Higher than that that the default CR is based on the assumption at least the primary damage dealer would have magical weapons with a separate alternative CR for those without it. So Tiamat would be a CR 30 for adventures (using the magic item assumption) and CR 45+ for everyone else (those without it)

load more comments
view more: next ›