Not the most useful of articles for me... I won't use any of it. Nothing wrong with it, but I've tried all the ideas in prior editions and determined they were not my cup of tea. I see nothing in 5E that would make the player rolling, Vitality or their version of alignment an improvement for my games.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Variant Rules
- Thread starter jgsugden
- Start date
Not the most useful of articles for me... I won't use any of it. Nothing wrong with it, but I've tried all the ideas in prior editions and determined they were not my cup of tea. I see nothing in 5E that would make the player rolling, Vitality or their version of alignment an improvement for my games.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
Oh man, I love vitality. I have been trying to suss out the problems with HP for a while now, and around here I couldn't even get people to see my problem. HAHA! I don't need you to believe me now!
Mournblade94
Adventurer
Really? The Alignment variant rules are nothing more than "every world can have it s own alignment system?"
Terrible release for something that occurs on such a sparse schedule.
Terrible release for something that occurs on such a sparse schedule.
The Saving Throws for the "Player-Roll" system are wrong. To get mathmatically the same result as RAW you just have to subtract 12 from the DC. Then roll D20. If you roll at least 10+<enemies stat bonus> he fails the Save. In our group we are using this system already since starting with 5e.
Example:
DC 13 vs. Dex, Enemy with 14 Dex (+2 Dex Modifier).
-> Save successful, if 11-20 is rolled -> 45% Chance for the spell to take effect.
Player-Roll:
D20+(13-12) -> D20+1 needs to be 12. Meaning at least an 11 needs to be rolled -> 45% Success Chance.
System from the PDF:
D20+(13-8) -> D20+5 needs to be 11+2. Meaning D20+3 needs to be 11. Meaning D20+2 needs to be 10.
Meaning D20 needs to be 8 -> 8-20 roll is a 60% Chance for the spell to take effect.
Why not use the correct math? It's not that hard to do ;-)
Example:
DC 13 vs. Dex, Enemy with 14 Dex (+2 Dex Modifier).
-> Save successful, if 11-20 is rolled -> 45% Chance for the spell to take effect.
Player-Roll:
D20+(13-12) -> D20+1 needs to be 12. Meaning at least an 11 needs to be rolled -> 45% Success Chance.
System from the PDF:
D20+(13-8) -> D20+5 needs to be 11+2. Meaning D20+3 needs to be 11. Meaning D20+2 needs to be 10.
Meaning D20 needs to be 8 -> 8-20 roll is a 60% Chance for the spell to take effect.
Why not use the correct math? It's not that hard to do ;-)
AverageCitizen
Explorer
I think you are wrong.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Some interesting ideas, even if we've seen them before.
For the players make all the rolls concept, I agree with the poster above who asked why change the mechanic? Why not just have a player roll the ogres +7 great club attack against a PC's AC? Why go to the trouble of changing the math? You'll always have to convert any published material.
The Vitality Points variant is interesting, but probably has a couple of flaws. Nothing that can't be fixed or worked around though. I personally wouldn't use it as presented, but I like the idea. Others mentioned using exhaustion levels as a way to reflect serious wounds; I like that idea. Glad this UA article got the discussion going.
The Alternate Alignment is probably the least useful to me, especially since 5E tends to lessen the importance of alignment at least as a mechanical aspect of the game. Honestly, I always hated how a paladin could almost never be lied to in prior editions, so I like that they've changed that up. If I was going to make any changes, I would probably just eliminate alignment altogether. I don't really see the need to change it up. For those that do, may I ask why? What's the advantage of having an alignment like "Sky", to use an example from above?
I think that the UA article was fine. Sure, a bit sparse compared to others, but I think variety is useful. Most folks who are complaining seem to be seasoned players/DMs....folks who seem to need published material the least. Sometimes an article like this may help people who are newer to the game and haven't seen 3 or more editions worth of these variant rules.
For the players make all the rolls concept, I agree with the poster above who asked why change the mechanic? Why not just have a player roll the ogres +7 great club attack against a PC's AC? Why go to the trouble of changing the math? You'll always have to convert any published material.
The Vitality Points variant is interesting, but probably has a couple of flaws. Nothing that can't be fixed or worked around though. I personally wouldn't use it as presented, but I like the idea. Others mentioned using exhaustion levels as a way to reflect serious wounds; I like that idea. Glad this UA article got the discussion going.
The Alternate Alignment is probably the least useful to me, especially since 5E tends to lessen the importance of alignment at least as a mechanical aspect of the game. Honestly, I always hated how a paladin could almost never be lied to in prior editions, so I like that they've changed that up. If I was going to make any changes, I would probably just eliminate alignment altogether. I don't really see the need to change it up. For those that do, may I ask why? What's the advantage of having an alignment like "Sky", to use an example from above?
I think that the UA article was fine. Sure, a bit sparse compared to others, but I think variety is useful. Most folks who are complaining seem to be seasoned players/DMs....folks who seem to need published material the least. Sometimes an article like this may help people who are newer to the game and haven't seen 3 or more editions worth of these variant rules.
lyle.spade
Adventurer
Interesting. There's no way to please everybody, however it's interesting to see that virtually all the comments on this UA are, if not negative, definitely not positive. No author will pump out work of equal quality over time, and I've liked previous UAs...but I'm with the majority here: this one is a combination of flat and unwieldy.
Perhaps some would enjoy opposed rolls in combat - seems that virtually no one here would. I wouldn't - 5e speeds up combat; why would I choose to slow it down again?
Alignment is something I've never pushed too hard in my games, as it seems a bit of a contrivance in the first place - anyone remember alignment languages from editions past? I use them but don't focus on them much. I think oWOD's nature/demeanor mechanic is much better...maybe I'll import that, but probably not.
I'll look toward the next UA - I bet it'll be better.
Perhaps some would enjoy opposed rolls in combat - seems that virtually no one here would. I wouldn't - 5e speeds up combat; why would I choose to slow it down again?
Alignment is something I've never pushed too hard in my games, as it seems a bit of a contrivance in the first place - anyone remember alignment languages from editions past? I use them but don't focus on them much. I think oWOD's nature/demeanor mechanic is much better...maybe I'll import that, but probably not.
I'll look toward the next UA - I bet it'll be better.
Obryn
Hero
It's pretty clear that none of the mechanics in the article saw testing or table use from WotC. It's as useful as some dude on a forum putting up his poorly-thought-out house rules. Check the math on the "players roll all dice" section. And ponder using those VP rules as they stand.
Free or not, it's fair to criticize bad rules for being bad.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I think you already know the answer why he made that comment. By his own admission he doesn't even play 5e, but drops by to make comments like this. Take that what you will.
Similar Threads
Voidrunner's Codex
Related Articles
-
D&D (2024) New Unearthed Arcana Playtest Includes Barbarian, Druid, and Monk
- Started by darjr
- Replies: 816
-
-
-
-