Technically the rule that grants advantage when a tool proficiency applies to a skill check you are also proficient in is a rule from Xanathar's it's not actually new to the playtest. However like many people I didn't learn it was in Xanathar's until after it came up in the playtest. The Playtest just adds it to the base rules.
What about the old ambidextrous feat. If I remember the 3rd edition one correctly. (Feel free to correct me.) It allows you to add your ability score to the second attack.
Technically, that's not a hard and fast rule in Xanathar's. The rules list suggestions for how a DM can adjudicate a tool giving you benefits to a skill check, and one of them is advantage. If you read just the tool descriptions, it just says you have a *benefit* to skills like history.
The new exhaustion mechanic also shows up really well if you have a character that normally hits hard because of Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. The normal -5 to hit is rough, but worth it and manageable with proficiency and advantages. Once you start adding another -2 or more, it becomes impractical to use those abilities. Which makes perfect sense for an exhausted character to be unable to perform their strongest attacks
Crazy you guys didn't mention the changes to the unarmed strike. When you make an unarmed strike you have 3 options on a hit. Knock prone, grapple, push back. This allows monks to initiate a grapple using dex, and or knock them prone for all their melee attacks to have advantage.
I have a house rule that getting knocked unconscious inflicts a level of exhaustion. I think the new exhaustion would still make getting knocked out have some consequence without being SO damaging.
@@bronzeox I actually used a similar house rule BECAUSE exhaustion was so punishing. It promotes healing people before they are down rather than just spitting out a healing word when someone drops to 0. My players were rarely getting dropped anyways, but it was ridiculous when it did happen - three out of 6 characters got dropped to zero, mass healing word to get them all back up, then no more heals until they went down again, then another healing word or mass healing word to bring them back up. They didn't even bother to heal after the battle and those same characters went down over a dozen times each in a single adventuring day that only had 3 battles in it, while the 3 that stayed up were near full HP the whole time and got topped up every time a mass heal was used. This was the worst of several such instances that occurred over the course of the campaign. Everyone agreed that it was absurd, so I added the house rule for our next campaign. Ours only applies exhaustion if the character failed a death save. Since you have to make one the instant you hit 0 HP, there is a ~50% chance you'll get a level of exhaustion if you drop to 0 even if you get healed on the next character's turn. They never let their HP get low anymore unless the healers are low on spell slots. On the flip side, if we had a smaller group that didn't have an abundance of healing options between them, I might not use the house rule.
I can see that but most players I've played with don't like that kind of hardcore gameplay, or at least those who do just stick to 3.5 or Pathfinder lol
@@daltigoth3970 When you said "Since you have to make one the instant you hit 0 HP" was that also your own houserule? Because it's not RAW, you're only meant to make death saves at the start of your turn, not when you first go down. I like the houserule though, my players would never accept it though.
The Two-weapon Fighting is probably the best change in One DND. It 100% fixes the issue with dual wielding in 5e. However, the nerfs to Two handed weapons, recreates the same problem we have in 5e: one style is vastly stronger than the other. In 5e dual wielders don't have an equivalent feat to Great Weapon Master and takes a bonus action to do the off-hand attack. In One DND GWM is a dead feat and Two-weapon fighting having an extra attack for free, just makes that style of combat vastly superior. Keeping the 5e GWM and using the One DND Two Weapon creates very similar in DPR fighting styles. I can tell you from now, in my games, we are going to use 5e Sharp Shooter and GWM, regardless of the official changes. Nerfing those feats, while buffing every single beyond broken caster feat like War Caster, is silly and makes no sense from a balance stand point. Casters are so overwhelmingly more powerful, that weapon users should have power attacks as a feature, let alone a feat and WotC removing them from the game is beyond daft. It shows they don't understand how combat works in their own game.
It might be that they include a “power attack” ability that lets you -5/+10 attacks built in to martial classes when they release classes like fighter for One DnD.
@@acquiescinit considering they have no clue why the feats were mandatory, I would prefer to just slap them as features to the weapons themselves. You pick up a great sword, you should always be able to take -5 hit for +10 damage.
@@talongreenlee7704 I highly doubt it. From what we have seen damage nerfs are across the board. Clerics lost Spiritual Weapon, Casters lost crits. Also there are no more 1 level dips into Hexblade Warlock or War Cleric, which again is a nerf to weapon users alone. Casters kind of don't care about 1 level dips with the exception of dipping into Cleric for Armor prof, which they can still do.
I've already started using Guidance (and Truestrike, even though they haven't put it out yet) as a reaction spell adding 1D4 to the roll, and it works great.
Yes. Guidance: Reaction, 1d4 to a skill check. Resistance: Reaction, 1d4 to a saving throw. True Strike: Reaction, 1d4 to a "to hit" roll. Blade Ward: Reaction, 1d4 to AC against one attack.
@@freman007 D'OH! I knew I forgot some. But yeah, the whole series of them does so much! Cuts down on Guidance spamming and gives True Strike a reason for existing.
@@theunderback You are using your reaction to gain a small bonus against one single attack. Sure, it's like a mini Shield, but Shield's strength is that it's +5AC and lasts until your next turn. If a 1-4 would save an allied character from being hit, for example a Wizard casting Blade Ward on a Fighter to protect them, it might be a good use of the reaction, but then the Wizard doesn't have a reaction to protect themselves. An Eldritch Knight might take it as something to cast when they run out of slots to cast Shield. It would make it good, yes. But remember, nobody takes it now. I'd give it a bit of playtesting before coming down on the "too strong" side.
I appreciate your mentioning the less than stellar parts of the playtests, but also your patience and understanding that it is a playtest and they're trying stuff out. Love your work, thank you!
I like the idea of sorcerers being able to push the limits of their power, drawing upon some desperate energy, giving themselves a level of exhaust per spell slot used. For example, you really need another level 5 spell slot to close out the fight, but none available. Draw out the arcane energy from your own life force, giving yourself 5 levels of exhaustion to be able to cast the level 5 spell slot.
Cool idea. The only problem I see with this, would be that the spell would then be cast with a decreased save DC because of the exhaustion, which means that you took 5 levels of exhaustion and with it diminished the chances of the spell even succeeding... But the idea is definitely very flavourful and cool.
I **Love** the new Exhaustion rules. We’ve already implemented in our new game. I also plan to allow Lesser & Greater Restoration clear some or all levels (respectively).
I feel like a cool thing would be Greater clears all exhaustion, and Lesser clears as many levels of exhaustion as the Level the spell was cast at, that way you can upcast it if need be.
It depends on the pace of your game, but allowing levels of the new -1 exhaustion to be removed by a second level spell, or a bunch at a time by Greater Restoration, seems like it’d really defang what’s supposed to be a mechanic that ultimately enforces rest.
I am considering applying one level of the One D&D exhaustion rule when a legendary monster uses a legendary resistance. This way all or nothing spells like hold monster are not totally pointless against legendary monsters.
I could see instrument proficiency stacking with performance. There are people who are good at playing an instrument but can't put on a show, and people who can put on a show without ever touching an instrument. Joey Batey's character in the Witcher is a great example of someone who can put on a show and play an instrument, and acapella is a good example of performance without instrument proficiency
It also opens up other tools, you could get the same bonus (proficiency and advantage) with a puppet you're proficient with as with an instrument you're proficient with
Stage fright is the best example of having proficiency in an instrument versus proficiency in performance. Doesn't matter how well you can play the lute if you freeze up in front of a crowd.
I'll often make a player make different rolls based on their objectives. Are they just playing music in the corner? Proficiency check please. Trying to do the same thing, but distract the room? That's a performance check. In addition the scale of the performance might necessitate multiple checks. For a big concerto with special magic effects, for instance, they might have to start with a performance check followed by a proficiency check and finally an arcana check
Sure but ask this: is an acapella group (performance only) inherently "less than" a band with instruments (performance plus tools)? I think they can be both equally entertaining, so why would I give 1 less of a bonus to the die roll?
Inherently? Yes, I think so. That's not to say an Acapella group can't put on just as good a show, but it takes more practice, more work, and, arguably, the right crowd Edit: from a gameplay perspective, if I had a player that wanted to be a performer with no instrument, I'd give them 2 options, make a tool called singing that replaces an instrument proficiency, or sacrifice one instrument proficiency and gain expertise in performance instead.
My DM let me drop the concentration requirement for Hunter's Mark because I was beginning to feel how limited my options were in combat as a Ranger. Having extra spell options for combat is a great boon.
I also don't have my players roll concentration checks for hunters mark or hex. In addition, I give my rangers and warlocks free casts of these spells equal to their proficiency bonus that reset on a long rest. This makes my striker classes feel like they are as deadly as they should be, and it frees up those slots for them to do other things.
Not gonna lie, been a forever DM more or less sense I started playing 5e, and this is the first time I found out that Mark or Hex required concentration. It seems like a such a silly thing to need to concentrate on, since they are just single target debuffs that only really affect the caster's actions against that target, and are also more or less core features of their respective classes. I never once even thought to ask my players to make concentration checks for them.
@@ianwells7916 Hunter's Mark isn't even a debuff, just extra damage. It's so frustrating to see my players not pick it up because it's such a boring spell to concentrate on
@@ianwells7916 the only reason i see it needing to be concentration is having a hexblade cast spirt shroud and hex and just demolishing a single target
I've felt for a while now that exhaustion could be a good replacement for things like the shadow's strength drain. Instead of making us do a bunch of math to figure out our new scores for a bunch of abilities, just give a point of exhaustion, which will eventually result in death just like the strength drain would. With these new exhaustion rules this idea is more viable in my opinion
Strength drain leads to death in 5e? Are you sure that’s not a monster specific effect? Shadows traditionally made more shadows by maxing out the strength drain, but other things like poison diseases and spells that drain strength to 0 used to just cause you to collapse as you lacked the strength to move. Edit: I’m actually asking, I can’t find the rules for 0 in a given stat for 5e. I am looking, but… yeah. I know that in 3.5e only a 0 Con kills you, the others just render you unable to do anything through various mechanisms.
We've used the Performance with the Musical Instrument. Hasn't felt like double-dipping. It's finally felt like it's worth those musical instruments since the Performance skill was pretty much just a proficiency with ALL musical instruments up until now. We actually also do Sleight of Hand with Thieves Tools. I haven't felt like advantage with skill checks is all that game-breaking anyway. It's Hit Rolls and Saving Throws where you have to be careful about just handing it out. I haven't looked it up, but I've heard this was a little known rule in Xanathar's anyway.
Yes, instruments are considered tools for the purpose of these rules, and this "advantage rule" of being able to use both tool and skill proficiencies has been with d&d since Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Actually, in the description of musical instuments in that book, the Performance skill is mentioned directly as an example that could be used with the instrument to gain advantage on the check: "Performance. Your ability to put on a good show is improved when you incorporate an instrument into your act."
On the help action, I think if you have a related skill, but maybe not the exact skill, it should still apply. For example: if the acrobat is trying to jump higher, the athletic guy should totally be able to be a springboard; If the wizard is trying to decipher what the ancient artifact may do with his arcana research, the historian cleric may be helpful to find those secrets.
My Drow Hexblade's history is as a spy and infiltrator, so being able to start with a level of Rogue, with the Skilled feat, matches him far more closely to my image of him.
Some of the "new" advantage rules are based on the existing tool rules in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Proficiency with a musical instrument and the Performance skill already gives you advantage when using both together. Likewise proficiency with carpenter's tools and Stealth gives you advantage when trying to move quietly across floorboards. Read the book, Kelly!😉
With the new exhaustion rules I love using it now anytime a player goes down and has to make death saving throws. It adds a nice cost for going down that is not debilitating but adds flavor.
The help action specifically was always for combat related actions, not out-of-combat skill checks like athletics or investigation. I believe the PHB states you can help someone normally if you have the capability of doing so. It's good that they're clarifying now to make it easier to differentiate. The rule was always a little confusing.
Glad to see the exhaustion rule getting a lot of love. I use the current rule as a condition of failing some skill checks, or going into environments I'll prepared, and I do like the OneDnD version more (simpler to remember, more granular, etc.)
One DM had already had a home rule of giving a 1st level feat and it's really nice. I gave my ranger the Keen Mind feat, which I normally would never take cuz it does very little. But, it gave my character flavour.
I like the new exhaustion rules a lot, but I would love to see the current 5e exhaustion mechanic adapted to a "Wounded Condition" or something similar that is easier to recover from, perhaps by Lesser Restoration or a healing spell.
Believe it or not, the help action always needed proficiency for you to help another character with a skill check. It just left it a bit more open for the DM to adjudicate
Regarding equipment weapons for Two-Weapon Fighting; you can draw your off-hand weapon with your Object Interaction (as far as I am aware D&D have not mentioned removing that from the action economy) and then draw your main hand weapon as you make your first attack (using the new equipment weapons rules). This means that you will have both your weapons drawn when you make your first attack.
Yeah, the problem has always been it was a "wizard and cleric class feature" without actually listing it fully as a feature. Pretty okay with it being opened up.
i personally literally ADORE the heroic inspiration mechanic. i love the story implications of it, the benefits to rolling a nat one, and it being a sort of gold star sticker for dms to reward player creativity! i love it so so so much!!
Started running a barbarian with the new unarmed figthing and grappled rules and grappler feat and I got to say, I'm liking it a lot so far. It gives any strenght based character an option to keep anything smaller than huge locked into figthing with them, and unless I got the wording wrong, you can even just lock a fleeing enemy in place with an OA without sentinel
I've been using the new Light weapon property and the new Exhaustion both to great effect. Two weapon fighters finally feel cool (I find rogues, rangers, and monks do it most) and Exhaustion is easy to remember, which means no looking up the effects mid-game
Thank you dudes! I was thinking I’ve invested so much in 5e I’d like to cherry-pick the best of the new edition for my home game. This gives me a great head-start. Great video!
Thanks for keeping positive on One D&D. There is a lot of condemnation for a variety of reasons, but I also think there is evidence of thoughtful rules changes too. There will be a time for passing judgment, but we're not there yet.
I was looking over the play test earlier, in particular looking at two weapon fighting. With the fighting style for two weapon fighting and the dual wielder feat, you can make 2 attacks with a long sword at early level gameplay. Additionally, it makes playing a Martial class more fun and gives a reason to play with two weapons
Just wanted to comment that I love your content you guys rule! Also, it would be super cool if you guys put out some DM focused class specific videos. Stuff like “how to DM for a monk” where you’d explain the concept of “shooting the monk”. Basically just tips on how you as a DM can create situations for a certain class to shine, as well as helping us navigate any issues that can come up from a certain class or subclass feature.
I really like your House rule for a character pushing themselves to get a re-roll, and accepting a level of exhaustion. Vaesen does something similar, and we essentially crafted this rule, when we converted our campaign from Vaesen to D&D. It works best when a player describes a near failure, and then dramatically exerts themselves even further.
I house ruled the LVL 1 Feat in exchange for the late game feat, works out well so people end up playing the race they like most and gives them more flavor. I also never understood why only some people could "ritual cast" and let ALL casters do it. I'll definitely be adopting the new EXHAUSTION rules! And after reading some of the comments, I'm adding a lvl each time a player goes unconscious.
I think ritual casting is supposed to be a thing for classes that have to study hard to learn magic, whereas the more innate casters don't have the discipline. It was one of the few values to taking most wizards in the game, but hopefully they are going to fix them a bit. I half expect people to keep playing 5th with the few good things in 6th added.
The help action is really nice from a group building perspective as well. It allows for overlapping skill proficiencies in the group to be a bonus rather than a back up. The bit about Ritual casting is also really nice, since everyone who isn't a wizard or Feat-Ritual Caster had to take the opportunity cost of preparing or knowing that spell, anyway. Which can be quite significant for the Known Casters. Also Find Familiar is already a spell that doesn't require a spell slot to be used since you can cast it on day 1 and go adventuring on day 2 with your familiar still present. The only bonus is the arcane trickster can spend ten minutes to resummon their familiar if the familiar is taken out in a fight.
The part that I like about being able to draw a weapon with each attack is it in theory can potentially make characters build around throwing things like knives or axes more viable.
Honestly I think characters should be able to help each other with skill checks. Even if somebody can't build or take apart a car, it's helpful to have some hold a wrench. I reckon it should be you can't get help from another party member if you don't have proficiency rather than both needing it, so people can diversify skills more and actually act with teamwork to help eachother.
Perhaps a person with proficidncy helping gives a bigger buff to the roll, normal help gives advantage and with proficiency advantage+the helpers bonus
I agree with most of these however I’ve started incorporating inspiration on crit fails. It’s a really cool rule change that definitely leads to my players having higher morale.
I think the natural 20 version works out better. Assuming no Advantage/Disadvantage, the probability is the same (5%) . . . unless you're a Halfling. Using the natural 20 version, they have a 5.25% chance of gaining Inspiration because they're extra Lucky. Under the natural 1 version, they have a 0.25% chance to gain Inspiration . . . because they're extra Lucky?
I love the new Exhaustion mechanic and especially Monty's rule of getting to reroll at the cost of one level of exhaustion. It's like giving everyone the Lucky feat but with a nice drawback.
I’ve started using some of them, of all the worries, some of the core things they’ve shown are pretty good. I still have rouges sneak attack per turn, it allows for more team play/combos
I like this kind of video, because overall I don't see myself or my group switching to the new edition based on what I've seen of it, but I can see bringing some of these highlights into our 5e games.
@Tom Haswell i mean, the classes and subclasses and races are the parts I haven't liked the changes to so far, so that's not something to worry about lol
The Cleric Playtest actually addressed this, now you can draw the light weapon after the first attack but both weapons need to be light unless you have the Dual Wield feat
I've always played with the requirement of needing the Ritual Caster feature to cast rituals; so I'm probably biased. I didn't hear a complelling arguement in the video though. "I think it opens it up in an interesting way" and that it doesn't "break the game" are pretty weak arguements imo. To counter, the Ritual Caster feature differentiate some classes in a way which add flavour and reduces a degree of "sameness" imo. I suspect a lot of folks who are fans of this rule change may not either been away of the RAW or weren't playing with it anyway...so it's OK for each table to be different, but that's not the same as having a good reason to recommend a rule change. I feel though that the RAW is/was a useful differentiator and added some flavour for certain types of spell caster. There were also a couple of situations (Book of Ancient Secrets eldritch invocation and the Ritual Caster feat) where you could "kind of" work around the restriction, which may have reduced utility if you implemented the One D&D change...subtlely shifting the utility of quite a few classes.
That was one of my first thoughts. Considering barbs have reckless, advantage on strength checks and dex saves while raging, and aren't generally the skill monkeys of the group, a 1-3 penalty for rolls isn't too extreme.
I'm curious what you think about how the new exhaustion mechanics effects the Berzerker Barbarian. It probably becomes a lot more viable because they don't become useless if they get hit by an unexpected level of exhaustion
TBH I don't see the point in having Frenzy cost exhaustion at all if exhaustion is this weak. It just requires tons of book keeping for little impact on the game. Just let Bezerker use Frenzy whenever they Rage at no cost.
I've been thinking a bit about the help action with skills lately. My thought is that anything that a character could get help with or could take multiple tries by multiple characters has a higher difficulty check. The only thing that might need to be kept an eye on in doing this is how many characters would likely want to get in on certain skill checks.
I like new exhaustion ruling because to me exhaustion is more than just physical, it's mental and emotional as well. So I'm a fan of giving exhaustion for mental and emotional strain on top of physical. If a character is taking the time to research a topic in the library and they crit fail their investigation, arcana, history, ect. check take exhaustion from working so hard without results. Or if they are at a dinner party with some stuck up Nobles and 1 players decides to distract some with conversation foe the others to act, they suffer exhaustion from both mental and emotional strain trying to stay actively engaged with snobs for a prolonged period of time. I like an average adventuring day to leave the players exhausted to some level. This now allows that in a manageable way.
adding another hitpoint category with 10 exhaustion points is tedious and not needed, that's what a low die roll represents, your character is a bit taxed and can't do what they otherwise could have on some other day or try. Consequential exhaustion has been a fantastic tool for me as a GM in 5e and I think DM's cowardice to actually use it was to their detriment.
At my table, I have a "Dig Deep" option. Once per long rest, following a failed Attack Roll, Saving Throw, Athletics/Acrobatic Skill Check, or Concentration Check, a player can add 2 to the roll perlevel of Exhaustion taken. They can take as many levels of Exhaustion they want, and the malus from the Exhaustion doesn't affect this roll. We've used it once so far and it saved the player. I'm pretty happy with it.
That's funny that I've been using the level 1 feat rule for awhile now as a homebrew rule since 90% of my campaigns end between level 11 and 14. Let's my players get their builds going sooner so they don't feel like they finally got it just for the campaign to be almost over.
I have allowed players to choose one of the racial feats since I first read Xanathar's. What? I have been playing a gnome for two years and now I suddenly remember the skills I was born with?
It is SO awesome for me to have a bunch of my homebrew rules (feat at first level, changing ability scores, help action only if proficient, changed exhaustion) adopted by WotC over the years. It just makes sense. Now what they need to implement a rule where if you have 3 instances of advantage and 1 instance of disadvantage, you have more advantages, so you roll with advantage, it’s so dumb that you can have 25 instances of advantage but the second the enemy is prone your ranged attack is a straight roll.
I already have many of those in my games already, i also buffed most tools and added extra stuff, like 4 stages you can level your skill in a tool. The help action also got a buff in my games, you can only help when you are proficient, but instead of advantage on the roll, the bonuses get added together.
In our campaign the DM asks the player how they are trying to *help* the other character. If it makes sense they allow it. Full plate fighter might not be much use on an arcana check but standing there as a silent or else reminder might help with persuasion to avoid a fight.
yoyoyo, been catching up on a lot of your vids lately, and I notice a lot how you refer to the flexibility of the 5e system in regards to character creation and role fulfilment. It got me thinking, I'd love to see a series on making characters for the exact opposite role theyre ranked for. For example, a frontline wizard, a damage dealing monk, etc. I think it would be interesting to see you guys push the limits of character generation and have like maybe, a lvl 3, 5 and 10 review of them? the idea of a 5'5" 86 year old wizard that can tank hits like he's an iron golem is hilarious to me. one more rule maybe, no more than 3 levels in subclass? that seems like it would keep the class true enough to original just an idea, love the content x
My group uses this as a house rule except for the mastermind rogue who I said can help with any action because that's part of what makes that subclass great. If this change does stick around making certain classes or subclass have a feature that lets them help on any roll would be really cool
What about moving short sword to the simple weapons? I suggested to my DM that flail should also be moved since it's just a modified farm implement and he did it, with it doing 1d6 as a simple weapon. I also think the whip, a plain pick, and a scythe should be simple weapons, too. Keep on keepin' on, dudes!
My help action homebrew is: The helper must be proficient in said skill, and roll that skill at a DC of 10. If they succeed, the helpee gains advantage, and I use the highest of the 2 players rolls. That way if player a gets a 12 on thieves tools, player b helps and gets a 21 then player a rolls their advantage roll to get a 14, so the result is a 21 and is played off more as player a struggles and player b figures it out like "hey did you think of this solution because I think that'll work". Big success in my group they enjoy it and I don't have to hear a player scream "I help them" on every skill check even if that player couldn't feasibly help lol
As someone who is not following the updates from the new dnd version at all, it's entertaining to hear about new rules that i've been using for years already.
I am not sure I’d agree that they are; Personally, I’d say they are turning roleplaying into clearly defined machine-readable buttons on your character sheet or in the rule book that you can push to get a predetermined effect as well as tossing efforts to make game features tie into a strong narrative fiction out the window in some redesigns.
@@davec1 The way I see it, they are going back to 4th edition. trying to treat a TTRPG like its a PVP enabled Video game that Needs Every class to be cookie cutter balanced against every other class, with limited talent deviation because they assume all DMs are Dumb and dont know how to handle them........
@@ChamesLiverpool Those already existed in 3.5 and barely any DM I knew back then used this rule. Just ignore it if you don't like it. In any case, social skills are not mind control, so DMs should use common sense anyway. A seriously determined NPC can't be swayed by one good argument.
Changes in the Exhaustion rules also makes the Berzerker Barbarian a more palatable subclasses, with levels of Exhaustion from Frenzy being less of a penalty.
I think the new "exhaustion" is great as a different rule, like it was in ravenloft, but i think there is a place to both rules covering different bases
I actually think that the new two-weapon fighting mechanics make two-weapon fighting strictly better than Great Weapon fighting now. Because of this, I think its too strong as presented in the One Dnd play test. Before the play test came out I had my own homebrew fixes for two-weapon fighting which implemented the following changes: 1. When engaging in two-weapon fighting, attacking with a weapon in your off hand does not omit your ability score for the attack roll. 3. (Fighting Style) Two-Weapon Fighting: You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. 2. (Feat) Dual Wielding Master: You gain +1 to your Dexterity or Strength score, to a maximum of 20. When you are engaging in two-weapon fighting and take the attack action, you can make one additional attack as part of that action provided you use the weapon in your off hand to attack at least once. (Optional addition to the feat: you can only gain these benefits if you are not wearing heavy armour). Finally, while you are engaging in two-weapon fighting, you gain a +1 bonus to your AC. With these changes, getting the extra attack requires a feat, which isn't much a negative considering the feat also gives you a +1 to an ability score and a +1 to AC. These changes also buff two-weapon fighting for players who don't take the feat, since now they can simply add their ability modifier to the off hand attack, which makes the bonus action attack a little more worth it. I hope sharing this helped peopled :)
With the help action thing, I feel like if you can make it make sense, then it should still work with or without proficiency in that thing. The idea would be like... -The wizard is looking over a runic language and trying to decipher it with an arcana check, but is failing. The Fighter sees a pattern in the funky shapes that the Wizard is overlooking while deep in thought, which he can see because he's not looking for exact translations or something like that. -The Barbarian is trying to push a boulder, but it's taking some time. The Rogue can come over and apply leverage with a strong branch to help out that athletics check. -The Sorcerer is just hanging out by the Artificer and passing her tools from the medical bag to help treat some patient for a medicine check so she can keep her focus entirely on what she's doing. As another point, it would certainly bog some things down where two characters have the same proficiency overlaps and you have fewer options for those checks if you *only* allowed them to help if they share those proficiencies. For instance, you might end up finding out that no one's proficient in medicine because they were all sharing between investigation, arcana, perception, etc.
Gotta say it. As a skilled person in my field I can find just as much, if not more, help from someone who is unskilled. Sometimes it's as simple as asking what the professional might consider a dumb question, but by asking it they trigger a piece of forgotten knowledge.
10:13 About that, there's another way to do it, and is a house rule implemented in the tables I play at, which is "Yeah, you can help, but you must explain how are you helping, and the DM then decides if that would give them an advantage", for example, with the example you used, maybe you don't know arcana, but if you are competent in something related, you might give the wizard a new information that might be relevant. For example, if you have knowledge about how buildings and rooms tend to be made, you can give the wizard a helping hand with something that might be out of place or might be odd, like, for example, if you know about how the buildings like the one you are in ventilate, then having a sittuation in which the room has a fire trap that is spewing fire like crazy, yet the temperature is not rising, then giving that information to the wizard might help them realize that fire trap is only an ilusion or something similar. I think it has more to do with having to explain how are you helping than being proficient. It might help, but I prefer the one used at our table, since it rewards thinking in unconventional ways to understand a problem and being creative (of course, there should be reasons for your character knowing about those things.)
1:55 I’ve been doing this since I started DMing - my only caveat is that the feat can’t increase your ASI. It really helps build the type of character people want to play.
I _really_ like the Ritual casting change. Honestly, all spells are rituals. Every spell. They all require a specific set of gestures, words, or materials to cast. The difference is, combat spells are practiced to the point where the ritual only takes a second or two. However, with that being said I think it would completely break the game if you were to actually treat every spell as though it had the ritual tag.
Tiered feats is from D&D3, where feats could also have prerequisites. I've been letting players get feats at first level, and it is great for giving them more individuality. I gave them as rewards for writing backstory for their characters in 3.5, and for using the dice rolling system (4d6) with non-moving stat assignment in 5th edition (the stat dice define the character's choices to adapt their character around). You know, Oldschool.
I'm also in favor of creating feats to enhance class abilities -some classes already get this after all. An extra druid transformation, extra ki points (if sorcerers can get extra points, mages get extra spells, etc, why not?), etc.
Help action: Agree with not giving auto advantage without proficiency, but believe almost every instance should allow a chance for player to try to explain or offer how they can actually help the other character. If there's a compelling method of help provided without skill proficiency, seems it should be allowed. Cheers
I would rule that proficiency with an instrument can be stacked if it’s being used for a more complicated check. For instance if a bard is trying to persuade someone and they want to try to use an instrument to invoke an emotion in the person or people they’re trying to persuade. They play a beautiful song that amazes the king, or makes his wife weep with joy, or maybe shocks an angry mob and then gives them a chance to sway them with reason. It would also depend on the situation though. I might also take into account other factors that might affect the check the other way. If the mob is angry because too many children have be kidnapped, they could likely no listen to any kind of reason.
I already started using your two weapon fighting so I when that came out I was like okay we're going to be using this now. I missed the help action and ritual casting ability and I'm defiantly going to be using them
About the required skill proficiency to be able to take a Help Action, the house rule I use goes like this: To be able to take a Help Action, at least one of the involved characters must have the required proficiency. Explanation: even if the helper doesn't have the proficiency, the helped (who does have the said proficiency) can tell the helper what to do
The Advantage for synergy between tool and ability checks was already a variant rule in XGTE. It worked with musical instruments. "Advantage. If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success." (XGTE ch. 2)
I love the mixed species rule. Start with your base species to give you the abilities, then add the flavour of the second species. It opens up all sorts of options. My Owlin has been reskinned to be an Imp, for example.
In the two weapon part I may have missed it, but no meantion of fighters. Its the one class I always seem to just play but I was always sad of how bad two weapon fighting was for them, and now its a very valid option.
The rule about needing proficiency to give the help action, I have played with this for years. In some instances I feel like yes you need to know what you are doing to be truly helpful. preparing an arcane or divine ritual likely I would tell my players to help you need proficiency, but in other instances it can really just be about a second set of hands. Even in research having a helping hand to run and bring books or do some cursory reading. IRL example would be interns and apprenticeships, they aren't trained in a field but they are definitely helpful
On Musical Instruments being "Tools" - In the "Character Origins" One D&D UA there is a section specifying that Musical Instruments are "a category of tool with which characters can gain a Tool Proficiency", and in some of their example backgrounds included a Musical Instrument as the background's "Tool Proficiency", so yes, the RAW, and RAI is that having Skill Proficiency in the Performance, and Tool Proficiency in flutes would have Advantage giving a flute performance... Also Gaming Sets are "tools" which Rogues can get Proficiency in from their background, potentially giving them Advantage and Expertise when making Perception Checks to detect cheating, or when making Sleight of Hand checks to cheat...
Another side note on being able to draw weapons during your attacks is a major buff to throwing weapons like daggers and javelins and being able to actually use them.
Something I love about the tool proficiency rule is it can be used to tone down artificers. Artficiers have an ability that allows them to use their tinker tools to make any other set of tools, and I think they still add their proficiency when they roll with those tools (maybe my artificer player was cheating). It caused the rest of my players to feel like their tool proficiencies were useless because the artifier always rolled up with their tools and solved the problem with a much higher bonus. This new rule feels like it prevents the artificer from always having the highest bonus to roll with a certain set of tools.
Modifiers for exhaustion are easy to remember (rules wise) but they are actually easier to forget in implementation when actually playing i.e., you remember the rules but forget to play by them. Also, though I like the seriousness of dying from exhaustion I think no DM/party would ever allow the characters get to that point in most campaigns because of how costly exhaustion is. I would change the rules so: 1 level of exhaustion. Disadvantage on skills checks. 2nd level of exhaustion. Disadvantage on saving throws. 3rd level of exhaustion. Half movement speed. 4th level of exhaustion. Disadvantage on attack rolls. Enemies have Advantage against Spell DC. 5th level of exhaustion. You become unconscious and start making death saving throws. If you live you go back to the 4th level of exhaustion.
