D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Mephista]

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. Bounded accuracy was designed for combat, not skills. Expertise exists because bounded accuracy, using the same scale as combat, would ruin the skill system.

Where you getting this idea from? I thought it was part of the skill system, so I'd like to hear why you think its not. Please and thank you.

 

[Scott Christian]

None of that is a reason to leave "Does the target know its mind was affected by magic?" ambiguous. That's an essential detail for mind-affecting magic, without which the DM cannot reasonably assess how any given target would respond. It should IMO be stated clearly in every single enchantment spell.

I agree that the spell text should not mandate a hostile reaction as it does in the 2014 PHB -- I could easily imagine a wizards' association in which the routine consensual use of friends among members was regarded as a pleasant social lubricant -- but I do think the text should note how typical NPCs are likely to react: "When the spell wears off, the target knows its mind was affected and may become hostile as a result." This would help set expectations for players.

It needs to be unambiguous so the player can make an informed choice. Anything that can either work as intended or totally hose you depending on how the DM is feeling today can be serious threat to the game experience.

It's like if sometimes fireball just centered itself on you based on if the DM wanted it to or not.

If the Friends cantrip is crap, virtually no one will use it.

If the Friends cantrip is great, players will use it frequently.

The intention of the designers for the cantrip need to be spelled out clearly.

This isnt a situation where "DM fix it" is useful.

The DM needs a clear sense of how powerful the cantrip is supposed to be, assuming that the designers have already determined that the cantrip is solid or excellent without being broken or disruptive.

I am sorry if I am confused, but it literally states in the spell that the creature may seek violence or retribution or none of those. Do you mean to tell me you want WoTC to state specifically that the person will do X after having friends cast on it?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am sorry if I am confused, but it literally states in the spell that the creature may seek violence or retribution or none of those. Do you mean to tell me you want WoTC to state specifically that the person will do X after having friends cast on it?

Yes. That is literally what I mean to tell you.

That's what I meant by 'unambiguous' -- no 'mays'.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes. That is literally what I mean to tell you.

That's what I meant by 'unambiguous' -- no 'mays'.

You do understand there is a may in almost every spell out there, right?

Things may catch on fire when casting a fire spell.

Things may be able to sense you even if you are invisible.

The NPC may think you are a god if you cast resurrect.

It is all circumstantial, which is why it is left to the DM's discretion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You do understand there is a may in almost every spell out there, right?

Things may catch on fire when casting a fire spell.

Things may be able to sense you even if you are invisible.

The NPC may think you are a god if you cast resurrect.

It is all circumstantial, which is why it is left to the DM's discretion.

Those have rules attached instead of the DM's will.

Except the resurrection thing, which is dumb. That's like someone in modern times thinking CPR is a miracle. This is a thing in your world, random NPC who was resurrected; stop it. You know all the gods. Even the evil ones have a kiosk on every street corner for some reason.

 

[Mephista]

Nevermind me, misunderstood what was being said.

 

[Yaarel]

@Scott Christian

In the spell description, there is no "may". The Charmed condition happens on a failed save. What remains unclear is if the target knows they are − or were − under this condition. The game rules must make this clear.


FRIENDS
Enchantment Cantrip

Casting Time: Action
Range: 10 feet
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You magically emanate a sense of friendship toward one visible creature within range.

The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Charmed condition for the duration. The target succeeds automatically if it isn’t a Humanoid, if you’re fighting it, or if you have cast this spell on it within the past 24 hours. The spell ends early if the target takes damage or if you make an attack roll, deal damage, or force anyone to make a saving throw.

 

[Scott Christian]

@Scott Christian

In the spell description, there is no "may". The Charmed condition happens on a failed save. What remains unclear is if the target knows they are − or were − under this condition. The game rules must make this clear.


FRIENDS
Enchantment Cantrip

Casting Time: Action
Range: 10 feet
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You magically emanate a sense of friendship toward one visible creature within range.

The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Charmed condition for the duration. The target succeeds automatically if it isn’t a Humanoid, if you’re fighting it, or if you have cast this spell on it within the past 24 hours. The spell ends early if the target takes damage or if you make an attack roll, deal damage, or force anyone to make a saving throw.

That is not the 5e spell in the PHB. Here is exactly what it says:

"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile towards you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile towards to you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it." (Pg. 244)

This is in both PHB that I have. The one that was a first print, and the one that I bought this year to replace the first print.

 

[Scott Christian]

Those have rules attached instead of the DM's will.

Except the resurrection thing, which is dumb. That's like someone in modern times thinking CPR is a miracle. This is a thing in your world, random NPC who was resurrected; stop it. You know all the gods. Even the evil ones have a kiosk on every street corner for some reason.

They have rules attached, but the may still exists because of - variables.

Take burning hands. It specifically says: "The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried." As DM, if someone is carrying a bail of hay, are you going to say it doesn't catch on fire? How about the sails of a ship? They would catch on fire, except what if it has been raining for two days straight? These are all may clauses, and they exist for almost all spells. Just like with friends.

 

[tetrasodium]

If bounded accuracy wasn't designed for skills, then why are ability checks bounded to the same proficiency bonus as attack skills?

You could have just said "proficiency grants x2 proficiency bonus to ability checks" if bounded accuracy wasn't intended. I see Expertise as somewhat balance breaking because it leads to the following scenarios:

Either A, the Expertise user just automatically makes most required checks while other characters struggle, or
B, checks that can theoretically challenge the Expertise user come up that are impossible for someone to make without Expertise.

Neither feels particularly good. There shouldn't be a "I'm skilled just way better" in a system where everyone is meant to make ability checks regularly. WotC attempted to move flat, numerical bonuses out of the system (which is why you get +1d4 with Guidance). Expertise could have been a Rogue class feature that gives them a skill die, or it could have just given them advantage. You'd have a similar effect on things, but you wouldn't raise the floor on checks.

The fact that Rogues also have an ability to raise the floor on checks on top of this is somewhat ridiculous.

Expertise isn't like Alice getting a bonus to a skill from a PrC or Bob choosing to dump max skill points into a particular class skill every level, both of those often had some prerequisite before even getting to the actually meaningful opportunity cost Dave was not eating while skipping up differently. Now it just plays out like an area of plot armor when expertise creates that kind of gap

I agree that 5e skills were clearly and obviously intended to be shackled by bounded accuracy to great detriment of gameplay. the bold bit is a little off though because what 5e does there is much worse than "just way better", it's way better at meaningful cost andthe DC ladder doesn't even extend high enough to support the excess. But it's ok for one character to be way more skilled than another at a given skill at a meaningful cost, 5e would need to ditch current the awful skill system and replace it with something less facile though.