This was posted on the D&D Facebook page a short while ago:
In case you can't read that ...
Dungeon Delver:
- Adv on Wis (Perception) and Int (Investigation) checks to detect secret doors
- Adv on saves vs traps
- Resistance to dmg dealt by traps
- Can search for traps while traveling at a normal pace (you must normally travel at a slow pace to check for traps)
Durable:
- Increase Con by 1 (max 20)
- When you spend hit dice to regain hit points, you always regain a minimum HP equal to 2 x your Con mod.
Elemental Adept:
- Choose acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. You can ignore resistance of that type, and you can treat 1s as 2s on dmg rolls with spells of that type.
- You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a different damage type each time.
higher resolution:
http://i.imgur.com/uL5Xmr2.jpg?1?6870
People coming here to hate on the art in 3... 2... 1...
Given this excerpt, it's quite safe to assume:
Martial Adept:
•Choose slashing, piercing or bludgeoning. You can ignore resistance of that type, and you can treat 1s as 2s on dmg rolls with weapon attacks of that type.
•You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a different damage type each time.
Proletheus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Dat durable.
And elemental adept is quite sweet. Honestly, playing a human (feat variant) looks like a hell of a lot of fun with 5E.
So...20 Con wizards regain 15 HP per HD spent!
Also, it is looking more and more like the alpha document is about 90% accurate.
Lawolf wrote:
Is Durable per individual HD (which might be a little too good for a half-feat) or per short rest (which would obsolete as you level)?
Saelorn wrote:
Elemental Adapt seems like the thing a Light Cleric, Fiend Warlock, or Dragon Sorcerer would want, and primarily for the ability to ignore resistances than the damage boost.
Assuming a fireball and Fire Elemental Adapt, the damage bonus per die would be (2+2+3+4+5+6)/6 - (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 22/6 - 21/6 = 0.17 damage per die. So, a level 3 fireball would deal an average of 1.3 extra damage for all 8 dice.
Its a feat that only comes into play when you would normally fail. Either because of bad luck on dice, or immunity. Very much a "So I don't suck this round" feat that's a gimme if you ever heavily favor a single element. Otherwise, not really worth it.
Durable is nice, especially for someone like a fighter or barbarian who expects to take a lot of damage.
Dungeon Delver is... well, very GM dependant. How much does your GM like setting traps in dungeons, and how good are you at dealing with them? Could be a godsend!
Durable seems.... rather OP for wizards, with 16 con you always roll a 6 on your HD healing? Elemental adept is not worth it at all, changing 1 tpo 2 is nigh pointless and ignoring resistance... while nice.... can be done by simply choosing a spell other than fireball when facing hell hounds. Dungeon dlever looks very awesome. If I were playing a caster I would choose both dungeon delver and durable over elemental adept... hmmmm actually I think elemental adept is for the elemental monks - that actually makes a very good fit for them, assuming they cant easily swap out their elemental type punch damage.
I don't know, elemental adept seems kind of weak to me. Would I give up +2 Int for ignoring one type of resistance and a tiny damage bump?
And durable is just more confusing than it should be.
Lawolf wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I don't think durable is poorly worded. It clearly states your minimum is 2x Con bonus not 2 x Con bonus plus Con bonus (that would be 3x Con bonus). The description does not mention the outcome of a dice roll, it mentions the number of hit points regained. Basically it will only be of benefit (beyond the stat boost) for those with a Con bonus of +2 or more. That sort of makes sense.
And FYI - not all DMs will allow stat boosts. Feats will be the only way to bost stats in my campaign.
Lawolf wrote:
Right, which is why I could see it either way. I mean, even if it was double your modifier replacing only the die portion, that would still mean that fighters and barbarians will roll within their normal possible outcomes.
A good, balanced solution would probably have it replace only the die portion, but cap out at your maximum possible die roll - a wizard with Con 16 or higher would always heal (6 + Con modifier), where a fighter wouldn't cap out at 15 hit points per die unless it had Con 20, (and even then, that's still within the possible range for fighters).
Durable says the minimum number of hit points you regain is equal to twice your constitution score. Doesn't that mean a wizard with a 20 con rolls 1d6+5 per hit die to recover hit point (minimum 10 regained)? So if they roll anything less than a 6 on the d6 they regain 10 hit points and if they roll an 6 on the d6 they regain 11 hit points? That is how I read it anyway.
mexdiaz wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
My bad - I was not looking at the image but the interpreted text on the first message. The actual text clearly refers to the outcome of the roll. That is 3x your Con mod. The expectation is that wizards will not spend enough points on Con for it to take them outside their max hp. The issue is more theoretical than real.
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Great Weapon Style: Whenever you roll a 1 or a 2 on a damage die for an attack...
Great Weapon Master: ...you can roll the weapon's damage dice one additional time, add your Strength modifier, and add the total to the attack's normal damage.
Both use language that avoids things like "damage roll" in order to separate the die roll from the total.
Lawolf wrote:
More reasons not to use feats.
Well, with funky wording in the Durable feat* we already have errata to add! 
* I would have written it as "When you spend HD to regain HP, you add twice your Con mod to each roll." Or, not link it to Con at all...Say something like "When you spend HD to regain HP, you can take half, (3 for d6, 4, for d8, 5 for d10, 6 for d12) or the actual roll(s), whichever is higher."
Incedentally, do you add your con mod to your HD healing rolls? I don't remember...
Cennedi wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Proletheus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Really? I like 4e and the more i see of 5e, the less it actually looks like 4e.
I just bought the 13th age book and read through it and it is faaar from 4e. If you squint, you can see little bits here and there from 4e but for the most part, the non-grid combat and heterogenous classes are far from from 4e.
These feats all seem like trap options, all situationally useful but overall worse than a stat boost.
The elemental adept damage boost is so small that its not even worth the word count. Ignoring resistance could be useful, sure, but the 1 = 2 aspect is uselessly small. A fireball does 8d6 damage (average 27), with each dice having a 1 in 6 chance of a whopping +1 damage, taking the average damage up to 28.33. I'd rather just have +1 damage and be done with it.
seti wrote:
I think this is my current favorite piece of 5e art.
The armour actually looks like real armour for once.
More of this, please, WotC, and less of the weirder stuff. 
Dungeon Delver and Durable look boring, but I like Elemental Adept. It's finally possible to make a character that specializes in one element and not be screwed over by resistance on monsters.
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
WhiteHarness wrote:
Amazing how much confusion a single page preview can cause. I guess the 5e errata document will quickly outgrow the actual rule text....
waltron wrote:
OK, serious post. So far we have three interpretations of the Durable feat, yes?
1) Roll your HD and bump the roll up to a minimum of Con mod x 2 then add Con mod as normal.
2) Roll your HD, add Con mod as normal, then bump the result up to minimum of Con mod x 2.
3) Roll your HD, bump the roll up to minimum of Con mod x 2 and a maximum of the highest possible result of HD, then add Con mod as normal.
Am I missing any?
For the record #1 seems like it takes no leaps from RAW while #2 and #3 guess at intent. On the other hand #1 seems odd since it will in many cases make the actual HD size irrelevant, but I see no reason why that would be unintended despite being odd at first glance.
"Let's not make these rules sound too much like rules, dude," is a good idea when it doesn't reduce clarity. So far there are surprisingly many ambiguous or contradictory passages in the PH and the Basic rules though. If nothing else, it would have helped a lot to include some edge case examples. That wouldn't force a change in style, and it would simplify life a good bit. Show us what a 20 Con mage with Durable gets from a HD and everything is good!
vacthok wrote:
emwasick wrote:
emwasick wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I'd read it as 'when you roll a hit die to regain hit points, treat the possible results for the die as being a minimum of 2x con mod' (i.e. option #1 above). I don't see how any of the others match the wording.
But it does seem like it's going to wind up making the hit dice almost irrelevant at higher levels.
Which is good, I suppose. More like Healing Surges that way.
emwasick wrote:
It's pretty clear what it means.
"When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifer (minimum 2)."
You don't regain hit points just from the roll of a die without modifiers, you get it from a roll of a die + your Constitution modifier. The minimum you regain is based on your total you regain. The resting rules read,
"For each Hit Die spent this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifer to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total."
A fighter with a 20 Constitution is going to get back a minimum of 10 hit points when they spend a Hit Die.
aleatoric wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Not to mention, you can't do 20 Con at first level. Highest you can get is 17 Con, which means you're waiting until at least your third stat bump for the 20 Con, and the Durable feat – that's 12th level for a Wizard. Now, if you're a Human, you can get it at 8th level, since you have 16 Con, but you can still get to 20 Con + Durable in 2 stat bumps (and you get that 1st-level bonus feat which I'm assuming you took Durable for the sake of this build).
Still, an 8th level character is already a pretty rought and tough character. By 8th level, you're already using 4th-level spells, your Arcane Recovery is 4 levels worth of spell slots, and if you're an Evoker, you can sculpt your evocations to avoid your allies and your cantrips deal half damage on a miss. The experience it took to get there is 34,000 XP – remember that you're supposed to get through 1st and 2nd levels in a single session each, and it only scales up from there, meaning we're looking at about 20-30 sessions (about half a year of playing) on average to get to 8th level. Sure it looks nice on paper, but D&D isn't often played from a CharOps perspective, but rather is played as a game.
emwasick wrote:
- When you spend hit dice to regain hit points, you always regain a minimum HP equal to 2 x your Con mod.
Durable seems pretty clear. When you take the action to use hitdice to recover, the minimum you ever get back is 2xConMOD. 20 is Mod +5. The Minimum you ever get back is 10. Unless something else adds to the roll, then you get back 10-11 (1d6+5 normal hit die expenditure) hps per die spent.
Dungeon Delver: Situational: Highly dependant on the campaing, but it does make you alot better at traps.
Durable: Good (with the weaker reading). If you have 15 or 17 Con, this is a pretty solid feat.
Durable: Great (with the stronger reading). If you have 13 or 15 Con, this is a solid feat. 17 Con this is an awsome feat. At 18 Con, it could still be considered, paticularly if you can make use of another 1/2 feat, or +1/+1 stat bump.
Elemental Adept: Poor: Unless they've really ramped up the number of resistances monsters get, this is only good for an ice mage in a snow campaign. Otherwise, boost your DC.
mellored wrote:
Irithil wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
This debate is daft, it's very simple, if you have a 14 con, you will never get less than 4 hp from expending a hit dice, that is all.
emwasick wrote:
mellored wrote:
Durable doesn't work like many of you are assuming. The language is clear.
"When you spend hit dice to regain hit points"...
Spending hit dice to regain hit points means rolling your hit die and adding your con. So a wizard regains 1d6 + con. So normally a 20 con wizard will regain 6-11 HP per hit die spent.
Next:
"you always regain a minimum HP equal to 2 x your Con mod."
This sets the minimum. Meaning however much you would REGAIN (the amount you regain already includes your modifier) is a minimum of 2x con. So in the case of the Wizard he regains 10 hp if he rolls a 1-5 and 11 HP if he rolls a 6.
It's still pretty darn powerful, because odds are you didn't gain 10-11 HP every level (unless your DM maxes hit die or you're a 'lucky roller').
Dastion wrote:
My goodness, reading the rules literally is malicious now?
mellored wrote:
Wow. No clue what hsppened to that quote block. Sorry for the spam.
kalil wrote:
Does anyone have an example in 5e of "roll" meaning die roll + modifiers?
All the examples of rolls in 5e I have found refer only to the amount rolled on the dice.
Examples:
Great Weapon Fighting Style
Elemental Adept Feat
Halfling Lucky
Rogue Reliable Talent
Hit Die Healing
Champion Expanded Crit Range
etc
I think most of you are taking the pre-5e notion that a "roll" equals your die roll + mods and applying it to the Durable feat. That doesn't work because 5e goes out of its way to avoid that type of language. For example, they never say things like a +X bonus to the roll, they say add X to the total.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Dastion wrote:
Selective CoC FTW!
kalil wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because Trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
They should have given an example, but instead we get a prettier page at the cost of clarity.
Lokiron wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OK.
All the people who are confused by Durable.
Why?
It is perfectly clear - there isn't the slightest confusion in it at all.
It says Con mod, and talks about minimum roll.
So your 16 Con Wizard would regain 6-9 HP per HD.
20 Con Wizard, 10-11 HP per HD.
Really - what is confusing about it - it is as clear as day!
Caliburn101. wrote:
People are just stuck in the 3e way of doing things where "roll" meant roll of the die + modifiers. 5e goes out of its way to separate these things.
Halfling lucky says when you roll a 1...you may reroll it. How can you ever roll a 1 if you have 12+ stat?
Rogue reliable talent says you can treat a roll of 9 or lower as a 10. Under the interpretation that "roll" means die roll + bonuses, this ability wouldn't do anything for a mid level rogue due to their proficiency bonus being between +4 to +10 (expertise).
Notice that hat they got rid of the "natural roll" language for critical hits? Well they did. For example, the champion scores a critical hit whenever they roll an 18-20.
There is not a single instance in the rules where "roll" means die roll + modifiers. For attacks and damage the language is clearly add a bonus to your roll.
A lot of features are overly wordy to avoid lumping rolls in with bonuses (see great weapon master feat and HD healing for examples).
Also, with that misguided ruling that roll equals roll + mod, you would technically have to add your Con mod again anyway as HD healing says to add your Con mod to the roll and the total is the amount healed.
Furthermore, the feat sucks. It is a bad feat which would be made horrible if "roll" meant roll + Con mod. It would do basically nothing for PCs with 16 or less Constitution. It would provide something stupidly low for a 16 Con fighter (5 HP per day or so at 10th level). Not even I can believe the designers are that incompetent.
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
So what Chris believes is that the halfling's lucky trait does nothing unless you have a 10 stat and no proficiency.
What Chris believes is that the rogues reliable talent does nothing for any rogue with expertise.
What Chris believes is that a 20 strength level 20 champion only scores a critical hit on a "natural" roll of 7 to 9.
Oh yeah, the alpha document had durable too. The feat is exactly the same, except it sets the minimum of the ROLL to your Con mod (instead of 2x Con mod). The wording is identical aside from that.
So in Chris's deranged reality, that feat would do absolutely nothing. Afterall, if your "roll" is really your roll + your Con mod, and the minimum of your "roll" is your Con mod, there would be no way to ever roll less than your Con mod.
That should make it pretty obvious how the feat is intended to work.
Has anyone... I dunno... tweeted Mearles on how to read Durable?
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I made the mistake of quoting the OP without realizing his paraphrasing made the feat less ambiguous. But I still think it's obvious that it works that way.
The Durable Feat does not say that it sets the minimum of your roll, it says it sets the minimum that you regain from that roll. If the wording referred to direct die results (Like Lucky does or the Reliable Talent) that would be one thing, but translating the die roll into health regained implies the inclusion of the modifier. So a 20 Con Wizard regains 10-11 HP.
To put this into perspective, let's apply similar wording elsewhere. Let's say there was a feat that said:
"When you roll a d6 to deal damage with a shortsword, the minimum number of damage you inflict from the roll is equal to 2x your Strength Modifier"
Are we going to assume that a 16 Strength character need no longer ever roll damage dice because he deals 6 minimum(which you can exceed on a d6) + 3 = 9. Or are we realistic and realize that we roll a d6+3 and will always deal at least 6 damage.
There is a difference between a die roll result (what shows on the die) and the effect of a die roll (which includes modifiers).
Furthermore, when in doubt - go with the balanced option. The option that easily negates the need to ever even roll that die probably isn't the right one, especially if you're so strongly leaning on the usage of the term 'roll' to support it in the first place.
Dastion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
OK here's the way in which this works, exactly as written.
It is as clear as crystal and isn't confusing at all, really.
So let's not put the cart before the horse here - I have for instance earlier in this thread been told I can't understand English (my native tongue) because the rule comes out with some counterintuitive results... just, wow!
So let me say this... the ENGLISH used and its clarity as NOTHING to do with how good the rule is. I shall make this point again later, but please keep it in mind eh?
Let's take the Wizards example, whose maths I fumbled last time after too much caffiene;
Con 10, d6 roll = 2-6 HP regained
Con 11, d6 roll = 2-6 HP regained
Con 12, d6 roll = 3-7 HP regained
Con 13, d6 roll = 3-7 HP regained
Con 14, d6 roll = 6-8 HP regained
Con 15, d6 roll = 6-8 HP regained
Con 16, d6 roll = 9 HP regained
Con 17, d6 roll = 9 HP regained
Con 18, d6 roll = 12 HP regained
Con 19, d6 roll = 12 HP regained
Con 20, d6 roll = 15 HP regained
So with a Con of 10 or less it's actually OK. With Con 12-13 it's marginally useful. With Con 14+ it really kicks ass, and at 18 Con for a Wizard it exceeds normal maximums.
Let's do the other end of the spectrum with the Barbarian;
Con 10, d12 roll = 2-12 HP regained
Con 11, d12 roll = 2-12 HP regained
Con 12, d12 roll = 3-13 HP regained
Con 13, d12 roll = 3-13 HP regained
Con 14, d12 roll = 6-14 HP regained
Con 15, d12 roll = 6-14 HP regained
Con 16, d12 roll = 6-15 HP regained
Con 17, d12 roll = 6-15 HP regained
Con 18, d12 roll = 8-16 HP regained
Con 19, d12 roll = 8-16 HP regained
Con 20, d12 roll = 10-17 HP regained
Here we see it does not exceed normal maximums.
Basically where the HD maximum is less than the Con bonus x 2 maximum you will get high stat maximum exceedance.
Anyway, I am not going to argue with anyone who doesn't understand this even at this point. It's clearly written and whilst I would have prefered a less clumsy RULE, the language used to describe it is FINE.
But that's probably intended - why take a feat if can only really assist characters that are already tough as old boots?
Mephi1234 wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Would've been cooler it Elemental Adept reduced immunity to resistance.
IgnatiusJ.Reilly wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Dastion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
So the best thing in this thread is the people who believe "roll" equals die roll + modifier must believe the game designers are completely incompetent and evs use the alpha version of the feat would do nothing under their interpretation.
How would a designer ever even get such a feat into alpha, as ideas get tested multiple times before ending up in such a document. How would a designer create such a feat without realizing it does nothing?
Clearly their interpretation is wrong, they just can't admit it.
Lawolf wrote:
SOMEONE JUST F'N TWEET MEARLES ALREADY.
It is more likely that “the number of hit points you regain from the roll” refers to the total number of hit points regained from that HD.
There are two possibilities:
- The feat intends that the character gain no less than three times their Constitution modifier.
- The feat intends that the character gain no less than twice their Constitution modifier.
Since the feat uses the phrase “equals twice your Constitution modifier”, the second possibility seems significantly more likely.
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Wow... it never ceases to amaze me how much arguing can come from very simple things.
And the craziest thing is, most of it is about 1 of the thee feats shown.
To echo Grifford, the easiest way to resolve this would be to ask the guy in charge, as we have on a lot of other rules questions, and wait until he answers. (I would, but I don't Tweet)
By the way, just because I feel left out, I'm in the camp of minimum of the total roll
So a character, let's say a fighter cause they get no love, with con 20 but not Durable can roll a single HD and get between 6 and 15 hp back (die result +5) while if he had Durable his results would be between 10 and 15, because his minimum hp gained has to be double his con modifier.
This does as some people have pointed out make the feat kind of useless for any character with a low con mod (and is a little odd for any with a negative con mod but who would really try and play that guy?). This of course fits in with the idea that you don't try and do things when you have a bad stat in that area, like a 8 strength great weapon fighter or a 8 charisma bard, because those guys don't tend to be very effective.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
vacthok wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I didn't think it was important before, but now I see that it might just be the absolute center of the agreement.
What does the word "roll" mean in D&D 5e?
Does it refer to one specific thing that is specifically defined as a the game term definition by the rule book? No.
Does it refer, depending on context, to any of the dictionary definitions used in the English language? Yes.
My reason to believe the above statements are true? Because the developers told us this is how they were going to write the rules.
And contextually, just like an Attack Roll is a die plus modifiers (not a die and also modifiers), a Hit Die roll is a die plus modifiers - despite the fact that in the context of critical hits, and thus powers that alter the critical hit rules, a roll is just the die.
Hooray, language!
emwasick wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Yep you roll, then you add your Con mod to the roll to determine the total HP recovered. Therefor the roll is just the dice roll and the total HP recovered is roll + Con mod.
Again though, nobody has an answer for why the feat sets the minimum to only 1x Con mod in alpha if the "roll" = die roll + Con mod.
Jeez guys, the feat is just ambiguous. The designers have been very clear that they are not trying for lawyer-tight language in this edition; trying to parse it so closely is silly. There's no right and wrong, either decide how you want to play it at your table or wait to see what Mearls says. Or write to cust serve.
Lawolf wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So here is the 3e Definition of attack roll.
"Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you're using"
Here is the 3e Definition of a critical hit.
"When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class and you have scored a threat.
5e is different. Look athe the 5e definition of attack roll.
"When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits."
5e specifically separates the roll from the modifiers. Roll + modifiers is not the attack roll, the roll is just the d20. In 3e, the attack roll is the roll + modifiers. Now look at the 5e critical hit rules.
"If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter. If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC."
Notice how they don't need to call out a "natural roll" in 5e. This is because the roll only ever refers to the d20 roll. In 3e, they needed a separate term for natural roll, because the roll meant the die roll plus modifiers. In 5e, this is no longer the case. The roll is only the result of the die roll.
Some more examples:
Lucky. When you roll a 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.
Superior Critical Starting at 15th level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 18–20.
Reliable Talent By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
None of those call out a "natural roll". The roll only means the die roll, not the total of the die roll plus bonuses.
Now for short rests and HD healing.
"A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total."
Notice they don't say "you recover an amount of HP equal to the amount rolled". They are very obviously avoiding 3e style wording where "roll" really meant die roll + total. In 5e, they state that the roll + the total is something. The roll is clearly only the HD rolled. The amount of HP recovered is the amount from the rolled die + the Consitution modifier. This makes sense given the wording of the druable feat:
"When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals your Constitution modifier"
That is from the alpha version of durable. The only way that feat does anything is if the roll relates to only the HD roll, not the HD roll + Con mod. The wording is identical to the final version, the feat was simply buffed. This means that the roll must only relate to the amount rolled on the dice. This falls in line with all the 5e definitions of "roll". There are no instances in 5E that follow the 3e style wording of roll being die roll + modifier.
You are one of the biggest pedants I've ever met. And for what? What are you gonna do when this flimsy, willful misinterpretation you’ve been spearheading gets shot down in due course? Then what will you have to show for your efforts? Do you have an end game for all this nay-saying? A purpose behind all this angst and bitterness you continually regurgitate onto this new edition you despise so much?
You keep spewing nthe same tired argument I've already shown to be wrong upthread. The one you've repeatedly avoided. The playtest document wording serves to illustrate why you are incorrect. How hard must you squint to see it differently?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
This is RAW vs RAI, Lawolf is correct as far as RAW is concerned for 5e. He explains it very well, but I think the intent behind it is for the 'roll" to include the modifier, or else a d6 hit die character with a con of 18 or higher just gums up the works. The feat was probably worded better in the Alpha document and someone who didn't get the "roll" only means the natural die roll in 5e not roll+modifiers.
i wish they would have clear concise language, I pay for clear well balanced rules, not something that will be interpurted different ways at different tables.
Paraxis wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
kalil wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
kalil wrote:
I think we should take a few more pages to specifiy the difference between "a roll" in RPG terminology and the act of rolling a die. 'Cause that one's so confusing that last time I was playing the DM said, "Roll for initiative," and I just burst into tears and sobbed, "I don't know how to do this!" and he was all, "You've never played before? It's alright, I'll walk you though it," and I was like "No, I've played for decades, but this time they used words, in sentences, and it just too hard to figure out what it all means!" 
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Sure, i'm always for more clarification that can help better understand stuff and reduce confusion.
A lot of stuff could benefit from more clarification, such as the elf's trance vs long rest for exemple 
Plaguescarred wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Like i said earlier, If they really wanted to include the modifier in the minimum result they would have just said;
"When you spend a Hit Die, the minimum of hit points you regain equal to twice your Constitution modifier (minimum 2)"
Instead they went out of their way to specify the minimum number of HP you regain from the roll when you roll a Hit Die. Rolling a Hit Die does not equal spending a Hit Die and addig modifier altogheter.
For exemple, They wouldn't specify you add your CON if rolling a Hit Die included it in Beyond 1st Level (pg. 10);
"Each time you gain a level, you gain 1 additional Hit Die. Roll that Hit Die, add your Constitution modifier to the roll, and add the total to your hit point maximum."
Nor would they make a distinction between spending and rolling the Hit Die and adding CON in Short Rest (pg. 67);
"For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it."
Plaguescarred wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
But that example also involves adding your Con mod to the HD roll. I'm asking for an instance where one rolls a HD and does not add their Con mod.
And I see a striking difference between the two you are comparing. Durable does not provide the specific language of adding your Con mod to the roll at all. So one could also interpret that to mean someone with Durable no longer adds their Con mod to their HD roll. Instead they roll the die flat but get minimum Con mod x2. See what I'm saying? Sure it’s absurd. But if we are playing rules-lawyer, it's a legit reading.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
If they wanted the minimum HP gained to be 2x Con mod, shouldn't they have said the minimum HP regained is 2x Con mod, not the minimum of the roll is 2x Con mod?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FYI there is a similar discussion going on EnWorld http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357614-Wizard-with-20-CON-and-the-Durable-feat&prefixid=dndnext
@mikemearls There has been confusion over the durable feat and the meaning of "roll" does a 20 con wizard regain a min 10 or 15 hp w/ feat?
@JasonBrock20 10 - roll means die roll + mods. Anything that affects only the number yielded by the die will say so specifically.
That won't be good enough for some around here...
Plaguescarred wrote:
According to Mike's interpretation, Improved Critical scores a critical hit on a roll (+mod) of 19-20 since it doesn't specify it only affect the number !? 
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
docdoom77 wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Thanks Azzy. 
Looking at Durable closely, it doesn't even talk about Short Rest or adding anything to the roll, hence why it should affect only the die roll as it can be used with any game element letting you roll a Hit Die to regain HP, be it a rest, feature, spell, trait, magic items etc.. wether it let you add any modifier or not.
I agree that Mike's interpretation of Durable has ramifications across the system that i'm not sure i would endorse ...
Azzy1974 wrote:
So mike had posted his response without even reading the feat. After reading the feat he says this:
@mikemearls: @ThingsCalledArt @JasonBrock20 just looked at the feat - the wording issue is there. should be result, not roll
@mikemearls: @ThingsCalledArt yeah, just looked at feat. the min roll + con mod application is fine.
/thread for real now.
Lawolf wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
That this entire thread, including Mike Mearls own confusion on the issue, is the result of the developers electing to use real language - as opposed to strictly defining everything as game terms - kinda bums me out.
The word "roll" can mean the act of rolling a die, the result on the die, the result of the die and any modifiers totalled, or a delicious dinner bread, and even other things... and yet we have those in the RPG community that would rather insist that "roll" only ever be used in a single way within the text of the D&D books, because they find making the authors jump through a few more hoops preferrable than reading the rules with context.
I guess that means here is where the ridiculously numerous FAQ entries or errata changes for no reason other than stunningly ironic levels of reading comprehension among people that play word-based games, cluttering up or delaying any of the FAQ/errata details that are genuinely needed begins.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mikes last tweet says min roll + Con mod it is. So 15 HP regained for each HD spent as a 20 Con fighter.
Edit: mike doesn't think it is overpowered this way either.
@mikemearls: @ThingsCalledArt yeah, just looked at feat. the min roll + con mod application is fine.
@mikemearls: @Plaguescarred though realistically, applying that to the roll doesn't make the feat too good - you dropped a 20 into Con and took the feat
Orethalion wrote:
Glad to see Mike revised his position! And BTW thanks to everyone involved in the discussion in a civil manner its what makes it fun to debate!
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page;
@mikemearls so a class with d6 or d8 HD and a 20 con can use durable to get back more than max possible?
Mike Mearls @mikemearls
@ccarlson101 yes
@mikemearls so a class with d6 or d8 HD and a 20 con can use durable to get back more than max possible?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kalil wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mike also just confirmed that a d6 and d8 HD PC with a 20 Con and durable can gain more than their max HD result.
Edit: not that it matters all that much. It is still a terrible feat.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The Tough, +2 Con, Heavy Armor Mastsrt, and the resilient feat are all much more useful than Durable IMHO.
Durable is only decent if you have a 17 or 19 Con, otherwise it is mathematically superior to gain one of those other options. And I doubt most classes will even want that high of a Con score anyway.
Lawolf wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Serow_Darkstar wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Actually, mike said 15 HP for a 20 Con wizard is the CORRECT interpretation by RAW. He also said he that 15 HP wouldn't be unbalanced. He admitted his original interpretation was wrong because he didn't read te feat.
Lawolf wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Azzy1974 wrote:
So I was right, it is 10 minimum.
Lokiron wrote:
vacthok wrote:
aleatoric wrote:
vacthok wrote:
You would think he would stop using twitter to answer questions on rules he can't remember and have a forum where he gets a heads up on rules clarifications.
He clearly doesn't remember every damn rule in the books - how could he?
So being asked to comment on one live and immediately is abound to lead to him making mistakes - especially seeing as he is trying to please everyone and should the prevailing meme be counter to what a rule was meant to be, or says literally, of course he is going to say 'yeah sure' now and again until he re-reads the thing.
I would suggest the comunity give him and his team the time to respond to these things with a suitable pause for review and thus some clarity of thought, rather than ambushing him - albeit, oddly, in a format and forum he seems willing to use, despite such events.
Orethalion wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
vacthok wrote:
Explaining this is feeling increasingly surreal.
In the Durable feat, "roll" should be "result." This is an error in the text, according to Mike's tweet.
The rule as intended for this feat is:
"When you roll a Hit Die to regain points, the minimum number of hit points you regain *from the result* equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum of 2)"
For a wizard with 20 Con, a normal Hit Die roll result would be calculated like so:
1d6 + 5
returning a number of hit points between 6 (1+5) and 11 (6+5). With the Durable feat, the minimum total hit points regained cannot be lower than 10 (2x5), so if the wizard rolls a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, (producing HP gains of 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10, respectively), he simply recieves 10 HP. If he rolls a 6, he still recieves 11 HP.
Okay? Is that much clear?
Now, Mike said that if you want, you can interpret the feat according to how it is (erroneously) written, and set the minimum of the *dice roll* to 2x Con Mod. In the case of our wizard (not to mention his rogue and cleric friends), he will always "roll" a 10, because the maximum of his hit die (6) is lower than the minimum of 2x Con. Thus, in this interpretation (which *is not the intent of the feat and is not intended to
coincide with any other rule or implied rule in the book*), the wizard would always gain 15 HP from his HD.
Is that clear?
Mike is not confused by this. At all. There is no confusion over the word "roll" because the word "roll" in the text of the feat was written in error, and should read "result" instead.
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain this, and I'm not sure I particularly desire to attempt to do so any more after this.
EDIT: looks like we are both posting simultaneously and both reaching the decision to drop the topic. I'm fine with this.
@ vacthok.
There is no inherent problem with fundamentally disagreeing with someone and sticking to you guns when you think you are right, however self-evident you think your point of view.
I think you have kept the debate strictly on the issue and not personalised it, so respects to you for that.
vacthok wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Mike then revised his opinion though stating that a 20 Con wizard or rogue would gain more HP than the maximum possible from their HD.
Lawolf wrote:
I am still waiting to see this much spoken about modular game where feats do not have to be used.
draegn wrote:
^ I feel it fair to say that others and I are waiting for the DMG or which ever book sets forth a "rule" about not having to use any feat or stat increase. A truly modular game would allow for this.
draegn wrote:
In 5e, "roll" does not mean roll + modifiers. Look at the 5e definition of attack roll, it specifies the total of the roll + modifiers.
In the 3e definition of attack roll, it only specifies the result.
Mike's first post was confused. He was thinking in 3e terms (which is why he thought some feature should say natural roll, a term that doesn't exist in 5e). He later corrected himself.
Final ruling is that a 20 Con durable wizard regains 15 HP per HD spent
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Quick! We need a ****ing autopsy on Mike's twitter replies so we know who was right.
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orth: you do realize that mike later revised that decision don't you?
He was clearly not thinking in a 5e mindset, but rather in a 3e mindset when he stated that it should be result and not roll. This is obvious given the fact he said te halfling lucky ability should refer to a "natural 1". Natural rolls don't exist in 5e, they are a 3e term. Once mike actually read the feat and thought about the 5e rules, he changed his first opinion.
Mikes last 3 posts all said the correct usage of the feat is for 2x Con mod to affect the roll, then you add your Con mod again on top of that. He confirmed in response to Chris that a 20 durable Con PC with a d6 or d8 HD will regain more HP than the maximum possible from their HD.
Lawolf wrote:
Most importantly, Mike said IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH WAY YOU READ THE FEAT BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE IS MEANINGLESSLY SMALL.
Can someone explain to me what the confusion is?
I read that feat to say that you roll your hit die and if the result is less than your CON x2 you regain Con x2 or the value of 2 (if you have no con bonus).
kev777 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
kev777 wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
I guess at this point we'll just have to wait and see if it causes enough trouble in organized play to warrant an official statement . . . 
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Serow_Darkstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kev777 wrote:
kev777 wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Serow_Darkstar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Some final observations;
This thread was originally an argument about what the RAW meant.
The RAW clearly works as I and some others said it does. The rules of English and grammar not being a matter of opinion, but pre-established.
It is in fact the revised RAI which actually works as others originally claimed the RAW did.
The initial confusion was down to a failure to understand the clearly written RAW.
The clearly written RAW is presumably to be replaced with RAI in eratta due to the nonsensical results at the low end as evidence by a complete analysis of the maths.
It IS NOT pre-established in the Basic Rules that roll = roll + modifiers. This is evidenced repeatedly as a previous post of mine demonstrates with direct quotes. The word 'roll' has been revised by Mike IN THIS INSTANCE to mean roll + modifiers to explain the RAI. The very fact the second instance of the word 'roll' in the RAI needs to be changed to 'result' is further proof of this.
That said;
1. The follow up Twitter feed was not as confusing as the summation on this thread seemed to make it - so hands up to my previous erroneous post here, Mike did indeed clarify the issue between RAW and RAI - albeit without the time to work it through and realise, for instance, that using it as RAW wouldn't be 'fine'.
2. The RAW isn't 'fine'. The only sensible and workable way for the feat to work is with the RAI version as the low-end results don't make any sense and the Feat gives no benefit.
Last but not least - this, and a few other things that have come up are what happens when you don't open playtest the things you put in the final rules. This was spotted immediately as a source of confusion, regardless of the root cause of that confusion, and could have been rapidly corrected before the rules went to print if the playtest process had not leaned so heavily on the obviously limited number of alpha testers.
You all do realize that mike changed his mind because plaguescarred and I pointed out that his idea that "roll" equals roll + mods doesn't exist in 5e.
We pointed out that his idea makes the halfling lucky feature useless, the fighter crit feature silly, and the rogue reliable talent feature useless.
He then said those should say "natural roll". Once we pointed out natural roll doesn't exist as a term in 5e (it is a 3e term) mike conceded and agreed that Durable works the way plague and I said it does. This was later confirmed by Chris when he asked if you get back more HP than the max of your roll.
Mike was clearly confused when he made his first statement as he was thinking in the 3e mindset. I have quoted numerous examples of how 5e always says roll + total where the roll is only the die roll.
If you really want clarification though, just tweet mike about it again. Do you feel brave enough to do that?
Oh, for the love of Pete.
Durable, as intended: The minimum HP you regain from THE RESULT of your HD is 2x Con Mod (ie. HD + Con Mod >= 2x Con Mod)
Durable, as currently written: The minimum HP you regain from THE ROLL of a HD is 2x Con Mod (ie. HD >= 2x Con Mod)
Durable, as used: Pick one of the two options above, and knock yourself out.
If you think one is underpowered or overpowered, use the other and be happy. If you think the RAI or RAW makes you "right", then give yourself a medal because congratulations, you're right. But please, please, please stop making public spectacles of you measuring out the dimensions of your rules lawyer degree.
In the end, arguing over the One True Definition of the word "roll" is deeply silly, because we, as DnD players, already use both "definitions" of roll interchangeably, frequently, and with absolutely zero confusion. Witness:
Bob: I attack the dragon with my greataxe. My roll is 17.
DM: Congrats! That hits! Roll your damage.
Bob: Aw dang, minimum roll. That'll be a 6.
Bob: Okay I attack the dragon again.
DM: Roll away.
Bob: Woot! I rolled a 20! Crit!
DM: Roll your damage dice twice then add your mods.
Bob: Okay. My roll is... (carry the one... ) ... 21! Gotta love those high rolls!
I know, I know... Very confusing stuff.
vacthok wrote:
vacthok wrote:
vacthok wrote:
But wait, do you want me to make a roll with or without dough modifiers? Or do you want me to make a natural roll? I might have to run to the store and buy some wheat berries... all I have is that pre-processed enriched flour stuff...
This making a roll stuff is too confusing. THANKS MIKE MEARLS!
Lawolf wrote:
vacthok wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Dual Wielder:
+1 AC when using two melee weapons,
Can wield weapons that aren't light,
Can draw or stow two weapons instead of one.
Lightly Armored:
+1 to Strength or Dexterity (maximum 20), gives proficiency with light armor.
Martial Adept:
Gives 2 battlemaster maneuvers and a superiority die.
Great Weapon Master:
When you drop a creature or score a critical hit, can take an extra attack as a bonus action, and -5 attack for +10 damage
Heavy Armor Master:
+1 Strength, -3 damage from piercing, bludgeoning, slashing damage from non magical weapons
Resilient:
+1 in attribute, +1 proficiency in any saving throw.
Warcaster:
Has advantage on Constitution saves when taking damage to maintain Concentration,
Don't need a free hand for somatic components of spells,
Can cast a single target, one action spell instead of your opportunity attack
HAM is not directly better then durable. Especially since it's +1 Str, not Con.