http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA5_VariantRules.pdf
Vitality and alignment options. I liked vitality in early d20 games and this one looks interesting as well.
The vitality system seems pretty good, though I won't be using it myself (for the sake of simplicity). I'm pretty much done with alignment as a meaningful line on the character sheet.
This vitality system seems far too simplified.
I like the alignment variant rules.
kalil wrote:
How do these vitality point rules interact with standard HP at high levels? I worry that it may make players less defensive for no gain.
At 20th level, my example Fighter/Champion build that I use for examples has 224 hp (20 con). If he takes a hit for 40 damage, that's 4 damage to his 20 vitality and 40 HP, leaving him at 184 hp and 16 vitality. His max HP per level is reduced by 40 points as well, since he lost 4 points of con and lost 2 hp per level. If he takes a crit for 60 damage, that's 12 damage to his vitality and 60 damage to his hp. 12 vitality damage is going to reduce his max hp by 6 per level, or 120, which is more than the amount of damage he took from the crit itself!
This will be less noticable at lower levels, when hp per level isn't being multiplied by 10-20, but it does seem to simply make crits more deadly for no other gain. I suppose it's just for gritty games, but it seems clunky.
I'm not a real fan of the effective Con damage from Vitality. I'd probably ignore that part if I were using it.
Otherwise, not awful. Overall I don't feel it does what I'd want out of a system like that, I'd be more likely to just use the Star Wars d20 system verbatim, but that doesn't make it bad just because it's not what I'd want.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
One of the things they have stuck through all through 5E was to avoid effets that require you to recalculate stats (and their modifiers) during combat. That part of the vitality system is a huge leap backwards for no good benefit.
I'd give this article a 50/50 rating. The "Players roll everything" is cumbersome, the vitality system is half good/half bad, and the alignment system is intriguing.
I love players roll everything. It just requires some numbers to be recalculated before play. Instead of player save DCs of 8+proficiency+ability, they just use their spell attack roll formula (profiency+ability). The player of the warlock in my group already is disliking not rolling "attack" for some of his spells; he feels like it takes agency away from him, even though the statistics are the same. Roling for AC also does the same thing; it gets players to pay attention to when they're being attacked. It also frees up the DM from having to roll dice and do math.
We don't do much with alignment because it's covered by the character concept anyway.
The vitality rules are similar to the set I posted during playtesting but I had also included the player selecting an additional ability score to also drop so that ability score bonuses were lost and there was a simulation of mechanical impact due to injury. Any ability score of 0 meant helpless.
Playing that way improved the realism a bit for players who wanted it, but it turned into more bookkeeping for a game that one of the design goals was simplification and less bookkeeping, and we eventually dropped it as unnecessary.
Anyone else notice that Players Roll Everything changes the chance of success for monster saving throws?
DemoMonkey wrote:
RevusHarkings wrote:
"I don't see how it's cumbersome at all....
If anything it's less cumbersome and takes some burden of the DM"
Anything that requires unlearning one, long accustomed method of doing thing in order to learn a different method of doing the same thing has a non-zero effort. The improvement offered by the new method has to be greater than the effort to adopt it.
I don't consider the improvement offered to be worth the effort that would be required to adopt; thus, to me, it's cumbersome. In the same way that adopting the metric system seems cumbersome to most americans, even though it is a much better system objectively.
...
And DMs like rolling dice too!
.
I liked 4E having attacks and defenses for everything, even spells. I had one player who didn't like spell attacks; all the rest did. That's my anecdotal evidence.
RevusHarkings wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
One month of waiting, for two pages and one paragraph of rules from previous editions? What gives?
mellored wrote:
Delazar78 wrote:
Delazar78 wrote:
Grousers: "5e was supposed to have modules! Where are the modules they promised us?"
WotC: "Here's some modules. They are for people who want to play D&D differently."
Grousers: "Wah. These are the suxxor! The core rules are better!"
The World: "Duh. That's why the core rules are the default. Cuz they are awesome."
I love it. Also, what is this? Two or three times in the last month or so that people actively complained here about the lack of something "promised"? Only to have it show up within that week. Brilliant.
FrogReaver wrote:
Sorry, but I got flashes of uglyvan for a sec.
Anyways, if you change "despoil" to "corrupt", you'd have a M-A, N, I-C system. So, you could call it "MANIC".
You don't need a new mechanic for Vitality. You can do it just using HP, spells, and a bit of rest.
In my games, Hit Dice can never heal you past half your HP, this simulates vitality and meat. Only with a weeks rest or magic can you heal to full.
Articles seems like a waste, especially if this is all they could come up with.
Not any variations that I'd be likely to use, but it's good to see a module for those that liked the 4e-style defences and such. Also, there's been more than a few that have asked for W/VP system, so it looks like they're in luck, too. While these rules modules aren't really my thing, I'm glad that more of these type of options are available and I'm interested to see what other rules module may come out in the future.
Players make all rolls in my home game, so I'm glad to see some official support.
*facepalm*
Yet another maths fail (saving throws) by WotC for the roll your own rules. D&D team, please walk over to the Magic team and have them check your junk before you post. Also, far too convoluted, it could have been massively streamlined.
Vitality is horribad, meaningless at low level and far more important than HP at high level. Really, WTF.
Alignment rules... a page of saying nothing at all.
Pop quiz: Can anoyone tell the class what the Unearthed Arcana column is and what it represents?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I don't get the complication of wanting the vitality mechanic. I just look at hp as a near miss or total miss depending on the effect. I even described in past editions that taking damage from a disintegrate on a passed save was the burn from the air ionizing near you. It worked for me. Other times I described the damage as the fatigue from moving out of the way.
arnwolf666 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Those rules for players always roll are totally unnecessary.
Whenever I have players who want to roll more, I just get them to roll for their enemies.
"Hey Bob, three goblins are trying to skewer you, roll their attacks".
"Your fireball covers all 4 bandits, roll their reflex saves".
"Who is first in the marching order? Steve? Ok Steve, roll a d20". *gets an 11 for an enemy stealth check, and spots it with passive perception*.
No need to unlearn or recalculate anything.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
* I feel interest for the system of vitality, because I wish to do a translation from the powers by the creatures of White Wolf's World of Darkness, like the vampire disciplines with blood points, the Garou's gifts, the awaken's areté, the fay glamour, the ghots' arcanoi, etc.
* For aligment my house rule is to add allegiance, and characters can hurt enemies with same aligment but different allegiance, or characters can be opposite alligment and allegiance, for example a caothic sheriff with allegiance Law, or a evil inquisitor with the allegiance Good.
Wuzzard wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Cwylric wrote:
I'm pretty sure the Defending variant rule is mathmatically correct. I don't have time to go into details on it at the moment.
21 - d20 should end up with the same range as a d20 in probability considerations. Mathematically the probabilities will be exactly the same.
However, 20 - d20 will result in value from 0-19 instead of 1-20. That is not probabilistically the same.
I'm all for adding in more realism, but Vitality is just an overcomplicated mess that doesn't accomplish that goal.
I'm willing to bet the saving throw rule is correct as well but i've not had time to analyze it.
-Vitality seems clunky, and fiddly.
-Player rolls all deal was in the 3rd Ed UA; as for using it, I would let player's make Saving Throw Checks for their spells, but I would still roll monster's attacks.
-Not sure where they were going with the Alignment bit, can't even really remember anything, very nondescript.
So, least of the UA articles so far, and I have enjoyed them all, I was just hoping for a tad more to sink my teeth into this month.
The 'Players roll everything' variant didn't appeal to me the first time in Unearthed Arcana . Lots of other things from that book did though (it's one of my favs from 3e).
As Brock mentioned, the alignment variant is entirely forgettable (and vague --no examples?)
dmgorgon already mentioned, Vitality doesn't accomplish its goal. In any case, such a variant is wasted on me, so I'm undoubtedly biased.
Very uninspiring UA this month.
Artifact wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Cwylric wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ilse wrote:
On my own I've been cooking up ideas for both player rolls everything and vitality, so it's cool to see them in UA. It's also cool to see the designers struggle with the implementation, because it means me, an amateur trying to get it right and struggling isn't an indicator that I'm terrible: good design is hard.
On Player Rolls:
It's a bummer that math is off; I really like this. When I'm DMing I have so many things to think about and track that the more rolls I can offload to the PCs, the better. I think the contests part is silly though. I think a better rule would be: Player rolls. The bonus is the PC's ability or skill bonus and the DC is 11 + the opponent's ability or skill bonus.
On Vitality:
I love this. There's a joke amongst D&D AL players in my area that being at 1 HP has you at "full fighting capacity," but the vitality rules make taking damage risky, and they make getting knocked unconscious very risky, because taking vitality damage directly is painful. Having to recalclate your max HP all the time is awkward, but I don't think it's that hard in practice: it's just your level in max HP for every 2 vitality damage you take. So PCs need to be more careful about the damage they take.
This also adjusts the balance of the game significantly; cheap healing tricks like Goodberry are less valuable, and long adventuring days get interesting, as the PCs may be significantly weaker in the last combat of the day than they were in the first, even if they conserved spell slots and other 1/day resources.
On Alignment:
I don't get it. The alignment grid has always made a ton of sense to me, and I'm curious if someone has a strong example of a custom alignment grid that works in their campaign.
I don't think the math is off on the defensive roll.
Let's be very simple: assume AC 15 for defender and +5 to hit for attacker.
Under normal rules, your enemy needs an 11 or better to hit because you have to beat the AC number. 50/50 chance of hitting.
Under the variant rule, you need to meet or exceed a target number of 16 with your +5 bonus. To do this, you need an 11 or better. Again, 50/50.
With regard to the save variant, I wonder why they didn't just say to use your spell attack bonus since your Spell Save DC - 8 equals your spell attack bonus.
RCanine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Ilse wrote:
None of these variants appeal to me in the slightest...
Cwylric wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Ilse wrote:
You know, piling all the Variant Rules into a bundle book called Unearthed Arcana after a while would make for a good supplement book. Similar to the Skills & Powers, but drawing heavily on the Forum and Convention responses rather than the inhouse "Playtest" stuff which would compose the S&P/S&M/C&T type supplements.
Basically, Unearthed Arcana could be the "This is US" book.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ilse wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote: