One D&D UA #2: "Expert Classes" Survey Open 10/20 - 11/23

[Psyren]

EDIT: Survey is now open! Access it through D&D Beyond as it appears to look at your account. If you don't want to make a DDB account and want to risk your feedback potentially being treated differently, the survey appears to be accessible via direct link here. (https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7066811/OneD-D-Expert-Classes)

EDIT 2: Survey has been extended until 11/23 for those who haven't yet provided feedback!

It looks like our next iteration of the 1DD Playtest is dropping soon - "Expert Classes." This playtest will focus on the new Ranger, Bard, and Rogue. (All the classes will eventually feature "over the next several months.")

I'll update with the link to the playtest document when it's available as it is not currently out as of this post (EDIT: They've confirmed the UA will be out tomorrow 9/29 It's now available! (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf)), but in the meantime here's JC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l44mmYu2pqM

As I've done before, I'll update this thread with key tidbits from the video for those who don't like slogging through the whole thing. EDIT: Done, see below:


For those who would rather not watch the whole video for the juicy bits (though this one is markedly shorter than the first) here are the highlights. I've split them into two rough categories with timestamps so that people can check on what I'm saying for themselves.

1) General Playtest Housekeeping / Rules Glossary

1:08 - Both new versions of existing subclasses, and brand new subclasses, will be included in the 1DD PHB. 48 total will be in core (up from 40 in the current PHB, or 42 if you count the DMG)

1:37 - Featless games are (to an extent) gone. Now "Ability Score Increase" is itself a feat - the default feat for games that don't allow any of the other optional ones. This means you are guaranteed to have access to at least two feats in every 1DD game - the 1st-level one that comes with your background, and the "Ability Score Increase" feat you'll get by default if no others are available.

2:33 - The new spell lists (i.e. Arcane/Divine/Primal) in the class UAs will all go up to level 9 so we have a clearer picture of what each class is getting, at least baseline.

3:13 - the Rules Glossary of each new UA will supersede the older ones. This allows them to make changes to the underlying ruleset based on feedback (see below).

3:53 - Critical Hit changes have been reverted. Monsters and Spelllcasters rejoice. Note that they may come back in some form.

4:56 - d20 Test 20/1 rule has been reverted as well. Note that it may come back in some form.

5:15 - Now they're experimenting with getting Inspiration on a natural one instead of a natural 20. Losing it on sleep (unless you're Human) is still unchanged.

6:21 - As of the video, 40,000 people have completed the playtest survey. (Note that when this was recorded, the survey was still open, so it is likely to have been even higher by the end.)

7:44 - While they appreciate feedback from other sources, the playtest surveys will be their primary source when crafting the new edition, so don't skip the surveys. (Also, they're continuing to design in the background, so reminder that not all changes we see will have been based on survey feedback. In fact, pretty much none of the changes in this UA will have been based on feedback in the last UA, because they issued the video before the former survey closed.)

2) Class Groupings / Expert Group Information

10:20 - There will be class groupings in 1DD; loose party roles that broadly describe that a class is aimed at. This UA is geared toward the "Expert" group, whose members consist of Ranger, Rogue and Bard in core, and he confirms Artificer will also be a member of this group (their wording implies strongly that Artificer won't be in core despite being referenced in this UA.)

11:15 - Class Groupings allow the devs to gate other rules elements (e.g. feats, features, magic items etc) by grouping. So for example, some magic items in the future may require you to be an Expert to benefit from them, or others might require "Warrior or Expert." This also allows them to future-proof design, as they can make new "Expert" classes in the future that can benefit from older material without them knowing in advance what they'll make.

12:55 - Classes within a group will have additional commonalities. The example given is the Expertise feature, which now every Expert will have. (Note that this is actually kind of the case today if you use Tasha's, because Rangers got the Canny feature and Artificers get Tool Expertise, but it's nice to hear this as an explicit design goal.)

13:39 - Experts also have the design goal of being able to lift certain things from the other groups. He doesn't give a specific example here but I have to imagine the Bard's Magical Secrets is one such trait, and possibly the Ranger's Fighting Style? (Interestingly, he outs 4 groups in this section: Warrior, Mage, Expert and Priest.)

14:50 - Another benefit to the groups is that they serve as a teaching tool for brand new players. Now they can suggest to those players that "For a balanced party, you may want at least one member from each Group." That way they can teach new players the importance of, say, having a skillmonkey, a controller, a frontliner and a healer.

15:15 - Corollary to the above; they also plan to provide brand new caster players premade spell lists going all the way up to 20, for those who don't want to do a bunch of reading or book diving. This way less people will - hopefully - have to go looking for a handbook less often to be able to play a caster.

16:22 - Interestingly, he mentions every caster will have the ability to change their spells after a long rest. This is not currently the case for Bards OR Rangers, the two casters in this UA, which suggests that there won't be spells known/spontaneous casters in 1DD?

16:49 - Ritual Casting is baseline now, nobody needs a feat to cast rituals! No idea what this will mean for non-casters who want some rituals, but this is great news for e.g. Sorcerers and Paladins.

17:43 - Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.

EDIT: We now have dev videos for the playtest material, see below.


[QUOTE=Psyren;25594210]They've released a series of videos contextualizing the changes:

Bard Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0Qr1dsRXY)

Ranger Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wgHB-jWIA)

Rogue Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gazqHYb67Q4)

Feats Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_llX1LBZ8)

[Oramac]

Really interesting! On the face of it, I like the idea of Class Groups, though I'll wait to see how it actually looks before fully deciding.

One MAJOR thing I noticed in the video is that he specifically called out the Bard and Ranger as prepared spellcasters, not known spellcasters. If true, this foreshadows a huge departure from the 2014 PHB, and is overall a good thing, imo. Though it does somewhat homogenize the spellcasting classes.

[Dienekes]

Interesting video.

I worry with Expertise being cordoned off exclusively for Experts that we still won’t see the non-caster classes that aren’t Experts still remain with little to no ability to interact with non-combat problems. But, I’m willing to wait and see how it goes.

Pre-set spell suggestions is probably a good thing, but I don’t know if it’s enough for the people who like the Champion subclass to suddenly feel confident playing a caster. Don’t think that can be done without reworking at least one or the caster classes from the ground up anyway; so I guess we’ll wait for the mage packet to see on that one.

Other than that, not much to comment upon until we actually see and playtest these classes a bit.

[Sandeman]

Interesting video.

I worry with Expertise being cordoned off exclusively for Experts that we still won’t see the non-caster classes that aren’t Experts still remain with little to no ability to interact with non-combat problems. But, I’m willing to wait and see how it goes.

Pre-set spell suggestions is probably a good thing, but I don’t know if it’s enough for the people who like the Champion subclass to suddenly feel confident playing a caster. Don’t think that can be done without reworking at least one or the caster classes from the ground up anyway; so I guess we’ll wait for the mage packet to see on that one.

Other than that, not much to comment upon until we actually see and playtest these classes a bit.

There might still be a Skill Expert feat that warriors can take.

[Yakmala]

Hmm. 48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out.

[Dienekes]

There might still be a Skill Expert feat that warriors can take.

Maybe. Still prefer if every base class that doesn’t have spells get some features that work with the other two pillars of the game naturally. I’m not a huge fan of “pick something actually useful for your character or the option to not be bored out of combat” style decisions.

Admittedly, Expertise is not the be all end all of out of combat features, in theory. But in practice? Other mundane options have been fairy mediocre to bad, at least in 5e.


Hmm. 48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out.

Also curious if we’re getting a straight 4 per class or if again Wizards and Clerics get about 7 each and everyone else gets 2-3.

[Oramac]

Hmm. 48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out.

It's not down from anything. If anything, the questions is, what's being added?

They've been pretty specific that they're only looking at the 2014 PHB which, by my count, only has 40 subclasses.

Barb: 2
Bard: 2
Cleric: 7
Druid: 2
Fighter: 3
Monk: 3
Paladin: 3
Ranger: 2
Rogue: 3
Sorcerer: 2
Warlock: 3
Wizard: 8

Total: 40

[Intregus182]

It's not down from anything. If anything, the questions is, what's being added?

They've been pretty specific that they're only looking at the 2014 PHB which, by my count, only has 40 subclasses.

Barb: 2
Bard: 2
Cleric: 7
Druid: 2
Fighter: 3
Monk: 3
Paladin: 3
Ranger: 2
Rogue: 3
Sorcerer: 2
Warlock: 3
Wizard: 8

Total: 40

My guess is artficer will could also be added as a core class which brings with it 3 subclasses of its own. But if they were being added i think they'd be an expert class too.

Hmm

[Daphne]

I usually prefer playing Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers because it's a one-and-done deal with spells known.

[Oramac]

I usually prefer playing Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers because it's a one-and-done deal with spells known.

Despite my last 2 characters being a wizard and a paladin, I generally agree. Spells known is much simpler in-game.

But it looks like that might be changing, assuming his wording in the video is accurate.

[Arkhios]

Hmm. 48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out.

My guess is the spell lists of arcane, divine, and primal will play a part in this, effectively creating three different ways to play each spellcaster and their respective subclasses; essentially meaning there wouldn't be only 48 subclasses, but a total of 144 effectively different class options. (Admittedly, the number decreases somewhat, depending on how many classes will have spellcasting, even as an option).

EDIT: Do note that the above was written before the Article was released, and I had no clue about its contents.

[MisterD]

I feel Artificer will not be in PHB but there will be a section stating that they are members of the Expert group and have access to all the group features and feats that are presented in the PHB that are available for that group. This way in the future they can create new class and say they are a member of a specific group

[paladinn]

Interesting video.. Some immediate impressions..

The "class group" concept goes back to the 3e "generic classes" (Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster) but also to 2e (Warrior, Rogue, Wizard and Priest). They did mention 4 groups: Warrior, Mage, Priest and Expert. It'll be interesting to see how much of the "group" features filter down to the actual classes.

So Group--> Class--> Subclass, with each level inheriting from the level above.

In 3e, the Experts were the "skill monkeys". I wonder if Bards are still going to be a full-caster class. If they are invested in the group concept, they might not be.

In 2e, Rangers clearly belonged to the Warrior group. If they are going to be "Experts" now, I wonder if their HD will be dropped. Maybe equal to the various Scout renditions.

If Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock are going to the the "Mage" group, will their casting mechanics be synchronized? It sounds like "spells known" are going to be tossed in general. Maybe there won't be a need for a Sorcerer class; and Warlocks can be a half-caster class (on top of the invocations).

It seems like they are going to impose a structure on the classes that wasn't there before in 5e. Not necessarily a bad thing; but 4e was that way too. All the classes fit into a grid based on role and power source. This might be group and power source (since Primal is going to be a thing).

Just my $.02 worth

[Yakmala]

My guess is the spell lists of arcane, divine, and primal will play a part in this, effectively creating three different ways to play each spellcaster and their respective subclasses; essentially meaning there wouldn't be only 48 subclasses, but a total of 144 effectively different class options. (Admittedly, the number decreases somewhat, depending on how many classes will have spellcasting, even as an option).

That would be a cool way to do it, if someone complex for newbies. It could also be that the arcane, divine and primal spell lists are defining the sub-classes, with each caster class having at least three sub-classes, one to represent each spell list.

So, you get your Life, Nature and Arcana equivalent clerics, your Devotion, Ancients and maybe Watchers equivalent paladins, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out. It's gotten bloated, so a culling was needed.

My guess is artficer will could also be added as a core class I hope not.

Spells known is much simpler in-game. Yes. It is. :smallsmile:

I feel Artificer will not be in PHB but there will be a section stating that they are members of the Expert group and have access to all the group features and feats that are presented in the PHB that are available for that group. This way in the future they can create new class and say they are a member of a specific group We'll see, but I have a hunch you are on the right trail.

So Group--> Class--> Subclass, with each level inheriting from the level above. Organized.

I wonder if Bards are still going to be a full-caster class. If they are invested in the group concept, they might not be.
As much as I like the full arcane caster Bard, I'd be happy to see the bard be an INT based half caster Expert type.

If Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock are going to the the "Mage" group, will their casting mechanics be synchronized? It sounds like "spells known" are going to be tossed in general. Maybe there won't be a need for a Sorcerer class; and Warlocks can be a half-caster class (on top of the invocations).Yes please, but why make a Warlock a half caster?


It seems like they are going to impose a structure on the classes that wasn't there before in 5e.
Not necessarily a bad thing; but 4e was that way too.
All the classes fit into a grid based on role and power source. This might be group and power source (since Primal is going to be a thing).
Crawford was on the 4e team, I can see this coming.

[Oramac]

I feel Artificer will not be in PHB but there will be a section stating that they are members of the Expert group and have access to all the group features and feats that are presented in the PHB that are available for that group. This way in the future they can create new class and say they are a member of a specific group

The video more or less stated this was the intent.

[Ignimortis]

Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.

Only experts getting Expertise is worrying, no blue color. Especially since two Experts are almost surely spellcasters, so Expertise is less about skills being a way to compete with spells and more an arbitrary thing you either get by fluff or don't.

Experts getting to dip class abilities from other classes is double worrying. Need to see how it works first, though.

48 subclasses, huh? Willing to bet that at least, let's say, 15 of them will be Cleric and Wizard subclasses, and some other classes will get like 2 or 3 tops. Such is the way of WotC.

[Psyren]

For those who would rather not watch the whole video for the juicy bits (though this one is markedly shorter than the first) here are the highlights. I've split them into two rough categories with timestamps so that people can check on what I'm saying for themselves.

1) General Playtest Housekeeping / Rules Glossary

1:08 - Both new versions of existing subclasses, and brand new subclasses, will be included in the 1DD PHB. 48 total will be in core (up from 40 in the current PHB, or 42 if you count the DMG)

1:37 - Featless games are (to an extent) gone. Now "Ability Score Increase" is itself a feat - the default feat for games that don't allow any of the other optional ones. This means you are guaranteed to have access to at least two feats in every 1DD game - the 1st-level one that comes with your background, and the "Ability Score Increase" feat you'll get by default if no others are available.

2:33 - The new spell lists (i.e. Arcane/Divine/Primal) in the class UAs will all go up to level 9 so we have a clearer picture of what each class is getting, at least baseline.

3:13 - the Rules Glossary of each new UA will supersede the older ones. This allows them to make changes to the underlying ruleset based on feedback (see below).

3:53 - Critical Hit changes have been reverted. Monsters and Spelllcasters rejoice. Note that they may come back in some form.

4:56 - d20 Test 20/1 rule has been reverted as well. Note that it may come back in some form.

5:15 - Now they're experimenting with getting Inspiration on a natural one instead of a natural 20. Losing it on sleep (unless you're Human) is still unchanged.

6:21 - As of the video, 40,000 people have completed the playtest survey. (Note that when this was recorded, the survey was still open, so it is likely to have been even higher by the end.)

7:44 - While they appreciate feedback from other sources, the playtest surveys will be their primary source when crafting the new edition, so don't skip the surveys. (Also, they're continuing to design in the background, so reminder that not all changes we see will have been based on survey feedback. In fact, pretty much none of the changes in this UA will have been based on feedback in the last UA, because they issued the video before the former survey closed.)

2) Class Groupings / Expert Group Information

10:20 - There will be class groupings in 1DD; loose party roles that broadly describe that a class is aimed at. This UA is geared toward the "Expert" group, whose members consist of Ranger, Rogue and Bard in core, and he confirms Artificer will also be a member of this group (their wording implies strongly that Artificer won't be in core despite being referenced in this UA.)

11:15 - Class Groupings allow the devs to gate other rules elements (e.g. feats, features, magic items etc) by grouping. So for example, some magic items in the future may require you to be an Expert to benefit from them, or others might require "Warrior or Expert." This also allows them to future-proof design, as they can make new "Expert" classes in the future that can benefit from older material without them knowing in advance what they'll make.

12:55 - Classes within a group will have additional commonalities. The example given is the Expertise feature, which now every Expert will have. (Note that this is actually kind of the case today if you use Tasha's, because Rangers got the Canny feature and Artificers get Tool Expertise, but it's nice to hear this as an explicit design goal.)

13:39 - Experts also have the design goal of being able to lift certain things from the other groups. He doesn't give a specific example here but I have to imagine the Bard's Magical Secrets is one such trait, and possibly the Ranger's Fighting Style? (Interestingly, he outs 4 groups in this section: Warrior, Mage, Expert and Priest.)

14:50 - Another benefit to the groups is that they serve as a teaching tool for brand new players. Now they can suggest to those players that "For a balanced party, you may want at least one member from each Group." That way they can teach new players the importance of, say, having a skillmonkey, a controller, a frontliner and a healer.

15:15 - Corollary to the above; they also plan to provide brand new caster players premade spell lists going all the way up to 20, for those who don't want to do a bunch of reading or book diving. This way less people will - hopefully - have to go looking for a handbook less often to be able to play a caster.

16:22 - Interestingly, he mentions every caster will have the ability to change their spells after a long rest. This is not currently the case for Bards OR Rangers, the two casters in this UA, which suggests that there won't be spells known/spontaneous casters in 1DD?

16:49 - Ritual Casting is baseline now, nobody needs a feat to cast rituals! No idea what this will mean for non-casters who want some rituals, but this is great news for e.g. Sorcerers and Paladins.

17:43 - Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.

All in all, huge stuff here and I can't wait to dive into the document tomorrow!

[paladinn]

All in all, huge stuff here and I can't wait to dive into the document tomorrow!

Is it actually coming out tomorrow?

[Psyren]

Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.

Don't get too hopeful, this was recorded before the last survey closed so not all of the changes are due to feedback. But these could be.



I worry with Expertise being cordoned off exclusively for Experts that we still won’t see the non-caster classes that aren’t Experts still remain with little to no ability to interact with non-combat problems. But, I’m willing to wait and see how it goes.



Only experts getting Expertise is worrying, no blue color. Especially since two Experts are almost surely spellcasters, so Expertise is less about skills being a way to compete with spells and more an arbitrary thing you either get by fluff or don't.

How is that different from today? That's an honest question; I'm not seeing any non-Experts getting this feature anywhere, though I might be forgetting a subclass of some kind.

I expect Skill Expert will still be around in 1DD, just with a higher level requirement. Meaning that if you want expertise in Tier 1, your only means of doing so will be to roll or multiclass an Expert.


It's not down from anything. If anything, the questions is, what's being added?

They've been pretty specific that they're only looking at the 2014 PHB which, by my count, only has 40 subclasses.

Barb: 2
Bard: 2
Cleric: 7
Druid: 2
Fighter: 3
Monk: 3
Paladin: 3
Ranger: 2
Rogue: 3
Sorcerer: 2
Warlock: 3
Wizard: 8

Total: 40

42 if you count Oathbreaker Paladin and Death Cleric. So they're only adding 6-8.


It's gotten bloated, so a culling was needed.

As noted, they're not culling anything, this is an expansion. I expect that some of remaining 6-8 will be existing splat subclasses getting promoted to core (I could see Kensei being core for example), and some will be brand new.


Is it actually coming out tomorrow?

Yes, it's confirmed by whoever is running their official YT channel (should be pinned in the comments if you follow through the embed.)

[huttj509]

Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.

Actually, not quite. They mention in the video this iteration is before really going through the feedback. It's just part of the design process "try this, then try this, then try this."

Heck, back in Next they had a Cleric without Turn Undead just to see if anyone noticed, while pinning down what the playerbase felt certain classes "needed."

[stoutstien]

Im on the fence. I like the idea of breaking up classes into different grouping to act as gates to prevent the sheer volume of options to almost guarantee something is going to be missed. On the other hands I am going fight any idea of "roles" or standard party makeups to the bitter end. If I want to play PF I'll play PF. No you don't need a healer or controller or tank. You need a party that works together.

[KorvinStarmast]

For those who would rather not watch the whole video for the juicy bits

1:37 - Featless games are (to an extent) gone. Now "Ability Score Increase" is itself a feat - the default feat for games that don't allow any of the other optional ones. This means you are guaranteed to have access to at least two feats in every 1DD game - the 1st-level one that comes with your background, and the "Ability Score Increase" feat you'll get by default if no others are available. Gonna take a good hard look at this.

2:33 - The new spell lists (i.e. Arcane/Divine/Primal) in the class UAs will all go up to level 9 so we have a clearer picture of what each class is getting, at least baseline.
This will be nice to get a look at.

3:53 - Critical Hit changes have been reverted. Monsters and Spelllcasters rejoice. Note that they may come back in some form. Thanks to all who fed back!

4:56 - d20 Test 20/1 rule has been reverted as well. Note that it may come back in some form. Thanks to all who fed back.

5:15 - Now they're experimenting with getting Inspiration on a natural one instead of a natural 20. Losing it on sleep (unless you're Human) is still unchanged. OK, that's an improvement.

Artificer won't be in core despite being referenced in this UA.) For me, good news.

11:15 - Class Groupings allow the devs to gate other rules elements (e.g. feats, features, magic items etc) by grouping. So for example, some magic items in the future may require you to be an Expert to benefit from them, or others might require "Warrior or Expert." This also allows them to future-proof design, as they can make new "Expert" classes in the future that can benefit from older material without them knowing in advance what they'll make. Hmm, I sniff a bit of 4e structure here, will need to take a look at the text.

12:55 - Classes within a group will have additional commonalities. The example given is the Expertise feature, which now every Expert will have. (Note that this is actually kind of the case today if you use Tasha's, because Rangers got the Canny feature and Artificers get Tool Expertise, but it's nice to hear this as an explicit design goal.) OK, this might be a step in the right direction.

13:39 - Experts also have the design goal of being able to lift certain things from the other groups. He doesn't give a specific example here but I have to imagine the Bard's Magical Secrets is one such trait, and possibly the Ranger's Fighting Style? (Interestingly, he outs 4 groups in this section: Warrior, Mage, Expert and Priest.) What's that I smell? 4e? :smallsmile: Or do I smell AD&D 2e?

15:15 - Corollary to the above; they also plan to provide brand new caster players premade spell lists going all the way up to 20, for those who don't want to do a bunch of reading or book diving. This way less people will - hopefully - have to go looking for a handbook less often to be able to play a caster. Not a bad idea, slightly better than list of names in the back of Xanathar's.

16:22 - Interestingly, he mentions every caster will have the ability to change their spells after a long rest. This is not currently the case for Bards OR Rangers, the two casters in this UA, which suggests that there won't be spells known/spontaneous casters in 1DD?
I have mixed feelings on that, will want to take a closer look.

16:49 - Ritual Casting is baseline now, nobody needs a feat to cast rituals! No idea what this will mean for non-casters who want some rituals, but this is great news for e.g. Sorcerers and Paladins. Bravo.


17:43 - Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.[/SPOILER] There's a fine idea.
A bit more consistency and a bit of customizability.

[Psyren]

Im on the fence. I like the idea of breaking up classes into different grouping to act as gates to prevent the sheer volume of options to almost guarantee something is going to be missed. On the other hands I am going fight any idea of "roles" or standard party makeups to the bitter end. If I want to play PF I'll play PF.

This is the best of both worlds imo. Roles are not required, but they can exist as (a) a teaching tool for brand new RPG players who don't understand what a balanced party might look like, and (b) a balancing tool to let you gate various items and feats without needing to exhaustively list who they're for.

Hell, this could even kill or at least kneecap dipping - they could make a really nice feat, feature or item with the prerequisite "5 or more levels in Warrior classes" for example. Dipping 2 levels of Fighter for Action Surge wouldn't be enough to get you access to that thing.

[Sigreid]

Most appealing thing to me I see here is the idea that ritual casting will be open to anyone. If I were setting it up, rituals would be found/bought like magic items and able to be used by anyone who has the ritual.

[Kane0]

I'm very interested, and thanks for the sparknotes too!

[Millstone85]

Not necessarily a bad thing; but 4e was that way too. All the classes fit into a grid based on role and power source. This might be group and power source (since Primal is going to be a thing).I could see One's grid eventually looking like this:





Martial
Arcane
Divine
Primal


Mage
-----
Sorcerer
and Wizard
Cleric
Druid


Warrior
Fighter
Warlock(?)
Paladin
Barbarian


Expert
Rogue
Artificer
and Bard
Monk(?)
Ranger



Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.Crawford claims that they were always going to test opposite approaches, and that they haven't really started analysing survey results yet (The video seems to have been recorded a week ago, what with him saying that the survey will be open for one more week).

[Psyren]

Thanks to all who fed back!



Actually, not quite. They mention in the video this iteration is before really going through the feedback. It's just part of the design process "try this, then try this, then try this."

Heck, back in Next they had a Cleric without Turn Undead just to see if anyone noticed, while pinning down what the playerbase felt certain classes "needed."

huttj509 has the right of it, don't celebrate anything that got reverted yet. They are definitely in "see what sticks" mode, and none of the changes in this video could possibly have been based on the survey as it was still open.

[paladinn]

Yes please, but why make a Warlock a half caster?


Because there's already at least one mage-group-full-caster (the Wizard)

I can see them making Hexblade the "core" Warlock and having it fill the role of the eldritch Knight and Warlock. A mage-group-melee-fighter

Group......Martial.....Arcane.....Divine.....Prima l
Warrior.... Fighter...................Paladin...Barbarian
Expert.....Rogue......Bard.........Monk.....Ranger
Mage.......Hexblade..Wizard
Priest..................................Cleric.... ..Druid

Fill in the blanks?

[Psyren]

Because there's already at least one mage-group-full-caster (the Wizard)

Cleric and Druid will definitely both be full casters and definitely both be Priests so I don't expect them to make too big changes to the Warlock on those grounds.

In fact, Wizard and Sorcerer will likely both be mages, both full casters and both even use the same list. (I don't expect them to remove Sorcerer either given that the number of subclasses is going up rather than down.)


I'm very interested, and thanks for the sparknotes too!

*bows*


Most appealing thing to me I see here is the idea that ritual casting will be open to anyone. If I were setting it up, rituals would be found/bought like magic items and able to be used by anyone who has the ritual.

Currently they're available to anyone who can cast the spell. We'll have to see the document to know for sure, but as it currently stands that means nobody without spellcasting will have access to them at all. Good news for Paladins, bad news for Scout Rogues on Phantom Steeds.


I could see One's grid eventually looking like this:





Martial
Arcane
Divine
Primal


Mage
-----
Sorcerer
and Wizard
Cleric
Druid


Warrior
Fighter
Warlock(?)
Paladin
Barbarian


Expert
Rogue
Artificer
and Bard
Monk(?)
Ranger



Not to mess up your table, but he let slip that there is a Priest Group around 10 minutes into the video :smalltongue:

[J-H]

The class grouping/categorization is a solid idea.

I bet they break it with at least one class design, though. I don't know which one, I just don't think WOTC will stick the landing on it.

Sounds like they got some feedback generally paralleling my thoughts on some changes.

[Sigreid]

Cleric and Druid will definitely both be full casters and definitely both be Priests so I don't expect them to make too big changes to the Warlock on those grounds.

In fact, Wizard and Sorcerer will likely both be mages, both full casters and both even use the same list. (I don't expect them to remove Sorcerer either given that the number of subclasses is going up rather than down.)



*bows*



Currently they're available to anyone who can cast the spell. We'll have to see the document to know for sure, but as it currently stands that means nobody without spellcasting will have access to them at all. Good news for Paladins, bad news for Scout Rogues on Phantom Steeds.



Not to mess up your table, but he let slip that there is a Priest Group around 10 minutes into the video :smalltongue:

Unfortunate if they decide the fighter cant follow a ritual.

[Oramac]

17:43 - Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Some of the boons are REALLY powerful (two 9th level spell slots, anyone?). Also, the boons are not thematically tied to the class. Personally, I prefer a capstone that embodies the (sub)class for which it's made. It's one reason I love the paladin so much, and why damn near every homebrew I make uses subclass capstones.

I guess I'll wait and see, but I'm not too excited about this one.


Or do I smell AD&D 2e?

He actually mentioned 2e specifically in the video. So I'm pretty sure that's what you're smelling. :D

[Millstone85]

Not to mess up your table, but he let slip that there is a Priest Group around 10 minutes into the video :smalltongue:I can't find it. Do you have a time stamp?

[KorvinStarmast]

I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips. :smallyuk:
Let the Capstone be something else.

[Psyren]

I can't find it. Do you have a time stamp?

Sorry, meant to say 14 minutes. 14:00-14:05 is where he lets it slip.


I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips. :smallyuk:
Let the Capstone be something else.

a) We don't yet know if cantrip progression will change
b) Capstone at 18 is great, it means we can actually use our capstones for a while before the end of the campaign. (It likely also means that subclass capstones will be even earlier, say 15-16)

[Oramac]

I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips. :smallyuk:
Let the Capstone be something else.

From the video, it seems like it'll be 1/5/11/18. So not too far off. And capstones are (potentially) now boons from the DMG.

[Dienekes]

How is that different from today? That's an honest question; I'm not seeing any non-Experts getting this feature anywhere, though I might be forgetting a subclass of some kind.


It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.

[Millstone85]

Sorry, meant to say 14 minutes. 14:00-14:05 is where he lets it slip.Thanks. I completely missed that.

[paladinn]

I just hope they don't turn the fighter core class into a warblade. At most have that as a subclass. Just MHO.

[Dienekes]

I just hope they don't turn the fighter core class into a warblade. At most have that as a subclass. Just MHO.

And the exact opposite for me, of course. They tried to make the Warblade a subclass, there's just not enough room in a subclass to make a Warblade that actually interesting.

It'll be interesting from an academic standpoint to see where they go with things.

[Ignimortis]

Don't get too hopeful, this was recorded before the last survey closed so not all of the changes are due to feedback. But these could be.



Crawford claims that they were always going to test opposite approaches, and that they haven't really started analysing survey results yet (The video seems to have been recorded a week ago, what with him saying that the survey will be open for one more week).

Vacillating on whether to keep the blue, then. Hoping for the described way to win out thus far.



How is that different from today? That's an honest question; I'm not seeing any non-Experts getting this feature anywhere, though I might be forgetting a subclass of some kind.

I expect Skill Expert will still be around in 1DD, just with a higher level requirement. Meaning that if you want expertise in Tier 1, your only means of doing so will be to roll or multiclass an Expert.
That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

And the exact opposite for me, of course. They tried to make the Warblade a subclass, there's just not enough room in a subclass to make a Warblade that actually interesting.

It'll be interesting from an academic standpoint to see where they go with things.

It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.
Not expecting anything in that direction, personally. Would love if there was, but I sincerely doubt it will ever happen with the current zeitgeist. Again, would love to be proven wrong. But these days I'm increasingly leaning towards "maybe there are no good d20 games for me".

[Psyren]

It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.

I guess we'll find out when we see the new Rogue tomorrow.


That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

Everyone can get Expertise - via a feat.

If you mean "Fighters, Barbarians, Monks and Paladins should get Expertise as a base class feature"... uh, no.

[Dienekes]

That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

Not expecting anything in that direction, personally. Would love if there was, but I sincerely doubt it will ever happen with the current zeitgeist. Again, would love to be proven wrong.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. It’s unfortunate that with the DCs of skills as they currently are, the only way to get better than even odds of performing at the highest level, is with Expertise. Which just continues the trend of certain classes doing little to nothing outside of combat.

You could theoretically fix the problem by changing DCs (but so far in the packets that has not been demonstrated with 30 being the designated most difficult DC as it is in the base game) or expanding Proficiency Bonuses a bit. Which I doubt will happen with the promise of backwards compatibility.

The other option is to grant actual out of combat features. Which, WotC has been pretty tentative about. There’s definitely some out there. The skill maneuvers in Tasha’s which are mostly just worse Expertise. The most interesting is definitely Swashbucklers charm effect. But on the whole they’re pretty mediocre.

[Makorel]

The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.

[Millstone85]

The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.

[animorte]

The mvp of many threads, and counting, does it yet again!

Seriously, greatly appreciated Psyren. Keep up the good work.

[Ignimortis]

The other option is to grant actual out of combat features. Which, WotC has been pretty tentative about. There’s definitely some out there. The skill maneuvers in Tasha’s which are mostly just worse Expertise. The most interesting is definitely Swashbucklers charm effect. But on the whole they’re pretty mediocre.
Maybe that's the way they'll go, I suppose. The grouping of Warrior might suggest something like a common mechanic - maybe maneuvers? Although it all depends on how they group them. I'd rather Monk be Warrior and Paladin be Priest than in reverse.



Everyone can get Expertise - via a feat.

If you mean "Fighters, Barbarians, Monks and Paladins should get Expertise as a base class feature"... uh, no.
Paladins can go hang. But Fighters, Barbarians and Monks should get at least a couple of Expertise points, possibly more. Rogue gets four and should frankly get more anyway.


IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.
QFT. 2/3 off a very limited list or 1/2 off a less limited one is exactly where Bard belongs.

[Pex]

A brief mention of a new way of using skills. Very curious what they'll do there. It's nice Rangers will get Expertise, but I'm a little disappointed it likely means the Warrior classes won't get it. It was a hopeful idea in another thread to improve their lot. Oh well. I'll still offer the suggestion when the time comes.

[Mastikator]

A thing to note about subclasses, he said they're (we're?) playtesting 40 subclasses, not that the updated PHB would be limited to 40-something. And since it's supposedly backwards compatible then subclasses from other sourcebooks should be available too as they are. Or who knows there may come adjustment erratas.

[Pex]

Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.

Only experts getting Expertise is worrying, no blue color. Especially since two Experts are almost surely spellcasters, so Expertise is less about skills being a way to compete with spells and more an arbitrary thing you either get by fluff or don't.

Experts getting to dip class abilities from other classes is double worrying. Need to see how it works first, though.

48 subclasses, huh? Willing to bet that at least, let's say, 15 of them will be Cleric and Wizard subclasses, and some other classes will get like 2 or 3 tops. Such is the way of WotC.

Twelve classes, four subclasses each would be my guess. If so it means changes to Cleric Domains and Wizard Schools.

[Psyren]

The mvp of many threads, and counting, does it yet again!

Seriously, greatly appreciated Psyren. Keep up the good work.

You're just trying to get in my sig! :smallredface:

Ahh who am I kidding, you win.



Paladins can go hang. But Fighters, Barbarians and Monks should get at least a couple of Expertise points, possibly more. Rogue gets four and should frankly get more anyway.

Just give them more feats. Boom, you have an extra one you can spend on Skill Expert, problem solved.

And that way, Rogue (who also gets more feats) can stay on top of the Expertise game where they belong.


The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.


IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.

This sounds like a fantastic way to shatter their base beyond mending and ensure a good chunk of people never convert to 1DD. In short, awful idea.

[Ulsan Krow]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

[Corran]

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

Honestly, the ability to change spells should be a major, class-defining feature. Just about everyone should be spells known IMO.

[Psyren]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

10gp says Paladin and Monk will be Warriors.


Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

I do agree that if everyone is prepared it begs the question of why Sorcerer in the first place. Especially with them sharing even more of the Wizard list now.

At least we'll find out tomorrow. If the Bard is a prepared caster then we'll have reason to believe that's the goal for everyone and that's something we can push back on.

[Dienekes]

Just give them more feats. Boom, you have an extra one you can spend on Skill Expert, problem solved.

And that way, Rogue (who also gets more feats) can stay on top of the Expertise game where they belong.


Out of curiosity, why?

Like Expertise is a new feature that isn’t even Rogue exclusive in 5e. In earlier editions, all skills increased at the same rate. Rogues didn’t just have better skills. They had more of them, no doubt, but no one is trying to take away the number of skills a Rogue has. So it’s not tradition.

In the stories that I think of as inspiring D&D of old and modern day fantasy as well, I can think of incredibly skillful characters that I wouldn’t classify as Rogues. The list would include plenty of warriors and mages that showed very high proficiencies in various skills. So it doesn’t seem to be fitting the fantasy.

And as far as balance goes. As long as two of the pillars of play are not combat and are decided by skill checks, it’s frankly kinda weird to set one class as the potential best for all of it. Especially when they can still contribute very well in the combat pillar.

It’s not really a flavorful ability either. It’s just a means of evening out the weird number limitations of bounded accuracy.

It just seems a strange piece of tech to hoard.

[Makorel]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

If we discount artificer, we have enough classes to neatly slot 3 under each category. Paladin I assume is a warrior. Warlock I could see being a priest considering how often they seem to parallel cleric. I would make the argument that monk is a mage with a martial power source :smallamused: but I doubt they'll go that route.

[Ulsan Krow]

10gp says Paladin and Monk will be Warriors.



I do agree that if everyone is prepared it begs the question of why Sorcerer in the first place. Especially with them sharing even more of the Wizard list now.

At least we'll find out tomorrow. If the Bard is a prepared caster then we'll have reason to believe that's the goal for everyone and that's something we can push back on.


If we discount artificer, we have enough classes to neatly slot 3 under each category. Paladin I assume is a warrior. Warlock I could see being a priest considering how often they seem to parallel cleric. I would make the argument that monk is a mage with a martial power source :smallamused: but I doubt they'll go that route.



Actually I think Monk Warrior, Paladin Priest.

Emphasising group similitude, Paladin's broader class group features would surely have more in common with the other priesty classes than the physical exemplars

Monk though it's mainly because mechanically Monk has always been so far removed from any semblance of a caster system, that and DnD's interpretation of a Monk is just one gallimaufry of dubious spirituality and not a super fleshed out connection with any religious institution or commune


Also, bah humbug you're right there's no 3/3/3/3 symmetry with the interspersion of the artificer.

I suppose they have to add the Warlord, Magus and Mystic now

[Corran]

Honestly, the ability to change spells should be a major, class-defining feature. Just about everyone should be spells known IMO.
I think one reason for having more prepared casters may have a lot to do with how easy is to get a feeling of buyer's remorse when playing a caster.

Another reason is because not all spells are created equal. There are too many spells that are highly situational, and a game with very few prepared casters would make most such spells nearly useless (or rather the exclussive property of the one versatile caster that the game would keep).

I dont know if I see it as a class defining feature (because I have not thought too much about it to be honest, though feel free to elaborate), but I certainly find it to be a very defining feature to my enjoyment of the game. Being able to massivly change your spells presents kind of a challenge. This challenge is sometimes enjoyable and sometimes it's not. It's nice to be able to choose either while still playing a magical character.

[Brookshw]

Or do I smell AD&D 2e?


There's been a delightful whiff of it throughout 5e, it's gone a long way in restoring my confidence in the game :smallbiggrin:

[YoungestGruff]

Hmm. 48 sub-classes, down from 116. I wonder what will make the cut, what gets merged or combined and what gets tossed out.

My favorite bet?

Wizard Subclasses are gonna be overhauled. Assume that they stick to three classes per category, that's 12 total classes. Neatly, that leaves 4 subclasses/Class. Changing Wizards would make them cooler and free up the number budget.

[Ulsan Krow]

My favorite bet?

Wizard Subclasses are gonna be overhauled. Assume that they stick to three classes per category, that's 12 total classes. Neatly, that leaves 4 subclasses/Class. Changing Wizards would make them cooler and free up the number budget.


The Wizard subclasses are so ugly as is.

8 partitioned subclasses by magic categories, then some specific practices like Chronurgy Graviturgy, some more specific still like Bladesinging, then even some metamagical denomination about Scribes




Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.


Nice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think one reason for having more prepared casters may have a lot to do with how easy is to get a feeling of buyer's remorse when playing a caster.

Another reason is because not all spells are created equal. There are too many spells that are highly situational, and a game with very few prepared casters would make most such spells nearly useless (or rather the exclussive property of the one versatile caster that the game would keep).

I dont know if I see it as a class defining feature (because I have not thought too much about it to be honest, though feel free to elaborate), but I certainly find it to be a very defining feature to my enjoyment of the game. Being able to massivly change your spells presents kind of a challenge. This challenge is sometimes enjoyable and sometimes it's not. It's nice to be able to choose either while still playing a magical character.

But it's something that provides massive flexibility and power. Something that no one else has. BM fighters don't get to change their maneuvers every day. That, to me, is the definition of a major class defining feature.

But I'm heterodox on spells generally, so...

[Dienekes]

The Wizard subclasses are so ugly as is.

8 partitioned subclasses by magic categories, then some specific practices like Chronurgy Graviturgy, some more specific still like Bladesinging, then even some metamagical denomination about Scribes


My current hope is that Wiz subclasses end up being things more like Scribe, Bladesinger, War Mage, and maybe some Psion thing.

And then the focusing on a specific school would be relegated to a half-subclass thing, like the Warlocks Boon.

So you get some flavorful, more unique subclasses that represent something a bit more substantive, and also getting the ability to focus in on a spell school on top of that.

[Luccan]

This is, tentatively, better than I had hoped. I supposed we'll see if the feedback changed their decisions on crits and no idea on the auto-success/failure, but personally I've got fingers crossed. Switching the inspiration gain to 1s instead of 20s is a good idea; noone likes rolling a 1, but as a consolation that's nice. I also think grouping the classes like this is interesting. Raises some interesting questions though, like I can see having a Mage or Priest feat that could make sense for any spellcaster (like a Bard or a Paladin) that because of the restriction doesn't work for them. We'll see

[Mjolnirbear]

So... if Experts get Expertise...

then Warriors probably get Fighting Styles (...which would mean rangers lose fighting styles or *also* become Warriors...or more likely I'm wrong)...

But what on earth would Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks have in common that's exclusive to Mage? Not spells, that's universal. Not Ritual Casting, that's also universal. Metamagic would be a *great* one, but they'd DANG WELL BETTER give my Sorcerers something awesome for that.

And similarly Priests... Paladins and Clerics both have Turn Undead; but not druid. All three classes have resurrection magic, but so do bard and artificers. Resurrection or other support magic might be a very good one actually, but poor artificers and bards...



...


Actually, JC specifically mentioned experts were polymaths, able to do a little bit of everything. That would explain why bards and artificers might get support magic. So Support Magic really might be the priest thing.

.... but if that's how polymath works, then they'd also get whatever Mage power happens, or fighting styles? That would be quite the change.

I'm now confused. And excited. :)

[Ulsan Krow]

So... if Experts get Expertise...

then Warriors probably get Fighting Styles (...which would mean rangers lose fighting styles or *also* become Warriors...or more likely I'm wrong)...

But what on earth would Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks have in common that's exclusive to Mage? Not spells, that's universal. Not Ritual Casting, that's also universal. Metamagic would be a *great* one, but they'd DANG WELL BETTER give my Sorcerers something awesome for that.

And similarly Priests... Paladins and Clerics both have Turn Undead; but not druid. All three classes have resurrection magic, but so do bard and artificers. Resurrection or other support magic might be a very good one actually, but poor artificers and bards...



...


Actually, JC specifically mentioned experts were polymaths, able to do a little bit of everything. That would explain why bards and artificers might get support magic. So Support Magic really might be the priest thing.

.... but if that's how polymath works, then they'd also get whatever Mage power happens, or fighting styles? That would be quite the change.

I'm now confused. And excited. :)

Mages get Fireball


My current hope is that Wiz subclasses end up being things more like Scribe, Bladesinger, War Mage, and maybe some Psion thing.

And then the focusing on a specific school would be relegated to a half-subclass thing, like the Warlocks Boon.

So you get some flavorful, more unique subclasses that represent something a bit more substantive, and also getting the ability to focus in on a spell school on top of that.

I hope the subclasses denominate the how, and if it is very specific magic like the Bladesinger it could warrant

But with how distilled this 48 subclasses number sounds they might be going even barer than that to begin with.

Generalist Mage, Specialist Mage might be all they start with I suspect. Which I'm totally fine with.

[animorte]

I'm concerned with how the "Inspiration on 1s" is going to work with Halfling's Luck feature...

Does the 1 need to be the official result of the roll in order to gain inspiration? Most likely.

[Ulsan Krow]

Another benefit to the groups is that they serve as a teaching tool for brand new players. Now they can suggest to those players that "For a balanced party, you may want at least one member from each Group." That way they can teach new players the importance of, say, having a skillmonkey, a controller, a frontliner and a healer.

Hmm, somewhat mixed feelings on this.

[paladinn]

Priests get Channel Divinity. For druids that's wildshape; for clerics it's turning undead.

Mages probably just get spellcasting.. they're the best at it.. and maybe metamagic. I don't see much of the point in having a separate sorcerer class anymore honestly.

Experts get expertise. Rogues definitely.

Warriors would indeed get a fighting style.. Fighters definitely, and I guess that would include barbarians now. Greater HP Is a feature, btw.

Bards used to have to spend time as thieves before becoming bards; and in BECMI they were really thieves with benefits. Definitely experts, and definitely Not full casters.

Paladins and rangers have always been warriors, except for 4e which made rangers into pseudo-rogues. It looks like they're going back to that now.

Monks were first introduced as a cleric subclass. By definition they belong in the priest group.

It's really hard to see how warlocks are going to fit into all this. They've always been more "martial" than other arcane classes. I do not see them as priests at all. Are they martial mages or arcane warriors or arcane experts?

I guess one benefit of all this is that subclasses that really didn't fit or gain much from being subclasses of whatever class can now be "elevated" to instead fit directly under a specific group. I'm thinking of a number of ranger subclasses specifically.

[Hael]

At a fundamental level, I don't really see what has changed much, other than grouping and some speculation about which class gets which grouping.

For now the Ranger/Bard/Rogue are expertise groupings. Which was always the case (assuming the variant rule in Tasha for Rangers).

Thats fine I guess. One wonders if they are trying to orient these classes to the skill monkey role and to take that into account as an intrinsic part of class balance. Which IMO, would be a bit of a dangerous precedent. Skills are somewhat on the weaker side in 5e, and generally speaking you don't want to put up a pillar of play into competition with other pillars (like combat or utility).

So if eg the Bard is a lesser caster b/c he/she is a skill monkey, then we are kinda revisiting past mistakes.

[huttj509]

Actually, JC specifically mentioned experts were polymaths, able to do a little bit of everything. That would explain why bards and artificers might get support magic. So Support Magic really might be the priest thing.

.... but if that's how polymath works, then they'd also get whatever Mage power happens, or fighting styles? That would be quite the change.

I'm now confused. And excited. :)

I'd like to point out that in terms of the theme of the classes mentioned, the 'polymath' idea might take shape.

Rogue is not just Expert, but has some Warrior in there, a martial expert.

Bard has Mage bits in there

Ranger has Priest (well, druid) flavor in there.

I don't think (we'll see) it'll be "this class can also take Warrior feats" or the special features, but in terms of class style flavor.

[Zevox]

Was just wondering when we'd get the next one of these. Will be interesting to look through.


3:53 - Critical Hit changes have been reverted. Monsters and Spelllcasters rejoice. Note that they may come back in some form.
This I had to look up in the video to hear what they actually say, because oh boy did I hate those changes and am glad to see them reversed. There is the whole "these aren't based on feedback yet, we always planned to float multiple options here" thing, which is fair enough on their end, not a bad way to go about seeing what people like here; but given the way they talk about this in the video, I suspect the crit changes met with a largely negative reception. They were clearly forcing themselves to avoid saying anything specific about the responses to the crits changes, and from the way they were acting (especially the laugh as soon as the subject was brought up), I would think it a safe bet that it broke heavily in against it. For which I am thankful.


5:15 - Now they're experimenting with getting Inspiration on a natural one instead of a natural 20.
I don't like that much better than getting it on a natural 20, personally. The only way in which I'd say it's better is that it prevents inspiration from making it easier to get more inspiration. But it still cheapens the mechanic significantly, and I dislike that it's suddenly rewarding a natural 1. Barring some strange situation where failing at what you were trying to do is a good thing, I don't think that should ever be the case.


10:20 - There will be class groupings in 1DD; loose party roles that broadly describe that a class is aimed at. This UA is geared toward the "Expert" group, whose members consist of Ranger, Rogue and Bard in core, and he confirms Artificer will also be a member of this group (their wording implies strongly that Artificer won't be in core despite being referenced in this UA.)
Eh... I mean, this could be fine, but I hope they don't start using it as some kind of straight-jacket for the classes' design. Broad descriptions to make understanding the overall idea easier on new players is fine, but go too much beyond that, and I could see this creating problems where they're no longer trying to make each class best represent its respective fantasy, but fit into these specific categories they've decided everything must fall into. Which other aspects of this kind of sound like they might be leaning towards, with "every Expert class gets Expertise and can lift stuff from other classes" parts. So, yeah, a little worrying there, personally.


16:22 - Interestingly, he mentions every caster will have the ability to change their spells after a long rest. This is not currently the case for Bards OR Rangers, the two casters in this UA, which suggests that there won't be spells known/spontaneous casters in 1DD?
Also not a fan of that. That's one of the ways they can differentiate spellcasting classes from each other, and I don't see any reason to make one or the other universal. :smallconfused:

So, yeah, I dunno, one thing I'm pleased to hear in here, but a few others that don't sound necessarily so great to me.

[Psyren]

My favorite bet?

Wizard Subclasses are gonna be overhauled. Assume that they stick to three classes per category, that's 12 total classes. Neatly, that leaves 4 subclasses/Class. Changing Wizards would make them cooler and free up the number budget.

Er, you realize we're currently at 40 in the PHB right? :smalltongue: 48 is not a reduction, it's an expansion.
Unless they decouple wizard subclasses from schools entirely, they're not going to touch Wizard's 8; rather, they're going to sprinkle a couple extra over the rest.


Out of curiosity, why?

You mean why should Rogue be king of skills? Or why should Experts as a group be better at skills than Warriors?



Like Expertise is a new feature that isn’t even Rogue exclusive in 5e. In earlier editions, all skills increased at the same rate. Rogues didn’t just have better skills. They had more of them, no doubt, but no one is trying to take away the number of skills a Rogue has. So it’s not tradition.

Between the new backgrounds and new race design, getting to "good" (talent or training) or even "great" (talent AND training) at level 1 is going to be easy. Expertise meanwhile, allows the Experts to be... well, expert.



And as far as balance goes. As long as two of the pillars of play are not combat and are decided by skill checks, it’s frankly kinda weird to set one class as the potential best for all of it. Especially when they can still contribute very well in the combat pillar.

And other classes can "contribute very well" in the other two pillars :smallconfused: You don't need Expertise to contribute.


In the stories that I think of as inspiring D&D of old and modern day fantasy as well, I can think of incredibly skillful characters that I wouldn’t classify as Rogues. The list would include plenty of warriors and mages that showed very high proficiencies in various skills. So it doesn’t seem to be fitting the fantasy.

As above - you can still do that.

[Ignimortis]

There's been a delightful whiff of it throughout 5e, it's gone a long way in restoring my confidence in the game :smallbiggrin:
Yes, I've been smelling Roquefort since 2015. An acquired taste, I'm sure.


Honestly, the ability to change spells should be a major, class-defining feature. Just about everyone should be spells known IMO.
Yep, yep, yep. Preparing spells is a feature, not a detriment, unless they go hard Vancian and limit spell access to OD&D levels. And they won't.



Just give them more feats. Boom, you have an extra one you can spend on Skill Expert, problem solved.

And that way, Rogue (who also gets more feats) can stay on top of the Expertise game where they belong.

Could work. But I don't think it'll work out this way, especially with Bard muscling in on Rogue's turf for years now, and Ranger now angling for that too. And with feats likely not getting rid of combat capability feats, I doubt it'll work at all.

[Tanarii]

Compared to the previous UA this reads far more like 6e than 5.5e.

-------------------

Weird to see Bards grouped with Rogues and Rangers.

The best way to group the classes is:

Martial Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Martial Scout/Skirmish: Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Full Caster Support/Heals: Bard, Cleric, Druid
Full Caster Arcane Nuke: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

[Ignimortis]

Compared to the previous UA this reads far more like 6e than 5.5e.
Eh, class redesigns and minor basic rule changes are in line with "mid-edition PHB rerelease" like 3.5 was. Now, if math were to be changed and no backward compatibility were to be seen, then it'd be a real 6e.


Weird to see Bards grouped with Rogues and Rangers.

The best way to group the classes is:

Martial Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Martial Scout/Skirmish: Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Full Caster Support/Heals: Bard, Cleric, Druid
Full Caster Arcane Nuke: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Agree. Would be much fairer as to definitions.

[Tanarii]

Eh, class redesigns and minor basic rule changes are in line with "mid-edition PHB rerelease" like 3.5 was. Now, if math were to be changed and no backward compatibility were to be seen, then it'd be a real 6e.
3.5 didn't include redesigns from the ground up, just minor tweaks. Although the Ranger changed enough it marked the change from "warrior with some skirmishing skills" to "skirmishes with some warrior skills" that has stuck with it ever since.

Otoh 2e Players Option was a change enough it could have been it's own edition. And directly led to 3e, especially with many innovations pulled from Combat and Tactics. And 4e Essentials was complete class redesign that led directly to 5e.

So even if it's a "5e Essentials", that implies to me laying the ground for 6e in a few short years.

[Leon]

Cleric "Domains" have always to me felt like a cop out as a subclass stand-in, they should be giving you a flavored set of magic tied to the domain you choose and have a actual Subclass filling a defined role ~ your a Battle Cleric of the Moon God, Healer of the Wargod etc



Weird to see Bards grouped with Rogues and Rangers.


Not really they have always been a "skillful" class

[Arkhios]

...gotta say it. This is way (dnd)beyond annoying that they release a video speaking "now that we have two unearthed arcanas" even though we don't. Dagnabbit, I say!

[Dienekes]

You mean why should Rogue be king of skills? Or why should Experts as a group be better at skills than Warriors?

King of skills is not the same as only getting Expertise. Even if we opened up Expertise to most classes Rogues already gain the most skills, likely should end up getting the most uses of Expertise and Reliable Talent.


Between the new backgrounds and new race design, getting to "good" (talent or training) or even "great" (talent AND training) at level 1 is going to be easy. Expertise meanwhile, allows the Experts to be... well, expert.

Because talent and training doesn’t scale well into late game with the current skill DCs. Because of how bounded bounded accuracy is, the only way a character can consistently perform the highest skill checks are those with Expertise. So, we’re creating a system where only some classes can contribute in out of combat scenarios at higher levels and others can’t. And I think that’s a terrible system. It’s been a terrible system since 5e released.


And other classes can "contribute very well" in the other two pillars :smallconfused: You don't need Expertise to contribute.

Trying to make a Very Hard check without Expertise is a 25. Near Impossible is a 30. Those come up a lot in higher level play. Non-expertise characters have only a 35% chance to succeed at the first and 10% at the later. This high chance of failure results in my experience with those characters getting passed over for other means of solving things.

That is the situation I’m trying to avoid.



The best way to group the classes is:

Martial Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Martial Scout/Skirmish: Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Full Caster Support/Heals: Bard, Cleric, Druid
Full Caster Arcane Nuke: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

Everyone just trying to recreate 4e. You got your Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller.

[Brookshw]

Yes, I've been smelling Roquefort since 2015. An acquired taste, I'm sure.


Hah, now there's a game. Describe each edition as a drink.

[GooeyChewie]

My immediate gut instinct is:

Warrior: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin with Fighting Style as their shared trait (I would prefer Maneuvers, but Fighting Style is more in line with Expertise)
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Monk with Channeling as their shared trait (Channel Divinity for Cleric, rename Wildshape to Channel Nature, and add something to Monk like Expertise is being added to Ranger)
Mage: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock with some form of Arcane Recovery as their shared trait (Wizards already have it by name, Warlocks already get spell slots back on short rests, Sorcerer would need some new spin on it)

There would be some cross-over. For example, I wouldn't be shocked if the Warrior-esque Expert Ranger got limited Fighting Styles and the Priest-esque Warrior Paladin got limited Channel Divinity.


If WotC wants to go a bit bolder, I could see it as:

Warrior: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Priest: Cleric, Paladin, Warlock
Mage: Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer

Warlocks are 'priests' of sorts, just for their patrons instead of deities. I could see them getting a 'Channel Patron' to match the 'Channel Divinity' of the other two. Meanwhile Druids are essentially nature-themed mages. I'm not quite sure what the Mage unifying trait would be in this case, but honestly I was already kind of reaching with the Arcane Recovery idea above.

[Oramac]

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

I'm going out on a very flimsy limb here, but I think I know why WOTC is looking in this direction. In short, it won't really change anything. NOW WAIT! Before you rip my head off, hear me out. People who don't give a damn about fine-tuning their spell lists or min/maxing their spells known will do what they've always done: pick spells and leave it at that. Then you have the people who like to min/max their spells and change them up for every fight. Those people can now do that too.

Overall, I think the idea is that each individual player will do what they've already been doing. Pick em and leave em, or change em all the time. So, effectively, it won't really change much in actual gameplay.

Again, I'm WAAAY out on the limb here, but this is what I got from it.

[paladinn]

Any word on the UA yet?

[Psyren]

PDF is available on DnDBeyond!

For those who don't want to sign up, try this direct link: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf

[Dienekes]

New packet is out. At a quick glance it seems pretty conservative. Not gonna lie, my interest in the playtest waned a little bit. Reads less like trying cool new ideas and more just patchnotes.

Not that the patches themselves are bad. Half casters get casting at 1. Also Ranger gets some of Tasha’s optional features baked into the class, which is nice. I’m curious how the Bard’s new spellcasting works. With Bardic Inspiration being their healing now at level 1 followed by getting actual healing spells at level 2. An interesting way to get around the spell divide. But also kind of seems a solution to a problem they just caused.

Still, willing to see how it goes.

Oh they fixed the “On initiative get some resource if you have 0…” features. That’s nice. It’s how I’ve been playing them anyway, but a good patch is a good patch and should be recognized as such.

Don’t have time to go through the feats which I feel will probably be where the real interesting stuff might be hidden.

[Psyren]

Bard is still a full caster, and as I saliently predicted, they do NOT get the entire Arcane List, they only get access to Divination, Illusion, Enchantment, and Transmutation spells from that list. Sky did not fall :smallbiggrin: (They still have Magical Secrets for when you really want that Bardic Fireball.)

The Ranger looks absolutely fantastic, so much better than the original!

[Bigmouth]

The UA is now up on DnDBeyond!

The groups are listed.
Experts: Bard, Ranger, Rogue (And Artificier)
Mages: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk

[Wasp]

What have they done to my Lore Bard?! No Additional Magical Secrets?!? Aaaaaa!!!

[Ignimortis]

Monk is a Warrior. Good.

Bard is a full caster yet again. Bad.

Experts, Mages and Priests are defined by special abilities they get. Warriors are defined by durability (HP) and damage (DPR) yet again. Despite the game having everyone contribute to combat at least somewhat equally for three editions now, durability being more a build thing than class thing, and damage capability being wholly dependent on build again. Can they stop?

Ranger gets Fighting Style, so that's not a Warrior feature (Barbarians and Monks didn't get that before anyway). Maneuvers are not mentioned once, either.

Use Magic Device is changed - it could be a straight buff if someone didn't decide that the old function had to go (despite it not being massively powerful in any way). Instead you have to be INT-secondary with a proficiency in Arcana to make use of its' third feature.

Feats are mostly a hot mess. Epic boons are a blazing trash fire.

[Xervous]

Rogue has to take the attack action to get sneak attack, RIP.

Archery style is laughably unchanged, sharpshooter lost the power attack but gained CQC disadv immunity and now packs a half ASI. GW style is still a turd. The main thing I’m seeing on feats is less damage, and hello 10ft blindSIGHT on skulker. Oh what’s that, skulker asks for 13 DEX?

Mageslayer lackluster at doing what you’d expect. It’s mostly just a dollop of mental LR

Grappler looks spicy for monks. No save grapple AND you get advantage on future attacks?

[Dork_Forge]

Still reading, but good lord they have absolutely butchered the Bard...

[Snowbluff]

So much like with feats, I don't really like Epic Boons being tied to levels in a specific class.

Not sure how I feel about weapon feats being 4th level feats either. A lot of people will be unhappy with the feat budget still. If their goal is to reduce complaints about feat placement, they've soundly dodged success.

Due to how subclass is written, old subclasses should still be compatible even if they don't line up with the progression on the table.


Still reading, but good lord they have absolutely butchered the Bard...

Indeed. Why are these features even moved up? This accomplishes nothing. The only substantial change is Song of Rest, which could be solved by... not making 3 generic lists of spells or at least letting classes have their own lists in addition to those.

[Psyren]

Still reading, but good lord they have absolutely butchered the Bard...

Have they? Bard looks great from where I'm sitting. Now you only have to use Bardic Inspiration when someone fails a check, and once you get FoI then if they roll a one on the inspiration die they still get to keep it. They also gained a bunch of useful spells they didn't have before like Levitate, Fly, Haste, and Contact Other Plane.

Sure you can't inspire somebody 10 minutes ahead of time anymore, but how often will they be that far away from you that you can't do it in the moment? And BI doesn't require you to make a bunch of noise either, you can silently twerk in the background while the rogue is picking a lock for instance.

[Dork_Forge]

Have they? Bard looks great from where I'm sitting. Now you only have to use Bardic Inspiration when someone fails a check, and once you get FoI then if they roll a one on the inspiration die they still get to keep it. They also gained a bunch of useful spells they didn't have before like Levitate, Fly, Haste, and Contact Other Plane.

Sure you can't inspire somebody 10 minutes ahead of time anymore, but how often will they be that far away from you that you can't do it in the moment? And BI doesn't require you to make a bunch of noise either, you can silently twerk in the background while the rogue is picking a lock for instance.

Bardic Inspiration is now = to prof bonus, hideous nerf.

Font of inspiration was pushed to 7th level, compounding the above problem...

Jack of All Trades has been pushed to 5th level, and nerfed in the process.

And the change to Inspiration means that you have another thing that is now 'what about checks that don't have blanket failure?'

The also stripped out some of their martial-ness, which doesn't really make sense when they're also crippling their ability to do Bard stuff.

[Snowbluff]

Have they? Bard looks great from where I'm sitting. Now you only have to use Bardic Inspiration when someone fails a check, and once you get FoI then if they roll a one on the inspiration die they still get to keep it. They also gained a bunch of useful spells they didn't have before like Levitate, Fly, Haste, and Contact Other Plane.

Sure you can't inspire somebody 10 minutes ahead of time anymore, but how often will they be that far away from you that you can't do it in the moment? And BI doesn't require you to make a bunch of noise either, you can silently twerk in the background while the rogue is picking a lock for instance.
They lost most of their "divine spells" and multiple features are several levels than they were later.

Font of Inspiration was at 5. Jack of All Trades was at 2. Magical Secrets was at 10. There's no substantial reason why any of these needed to be moved.

FoI Mk II new benefit gets worse as you level, due to bard die size increases, so it's like... whatever.

[Psyren]

They lost most of their "divine spells" and multiple features are several levels than they were later.

They get back a bunch of them via Songs of Restoration.



Font of Inspiration was at 5. Jack of All Trades was at 2. Magical Secrets was at 10. There's no substantial reason why any of these needed to be moved.

FoI is much less necessary now that you only need to spend dice on failures. They got a bunch of useful new spells (like the ones I listed) so Magical Secrets is less necessary too. And with how easy proficiencies are to get in 1DD, JoAT is nearly a ribbon now.



The also stripped out some of their martial-ness, which doesn't really make sense when they're also crippling their ability to do Bard stuff.

"Crippling," really? :smallsigh:

[Snowbluff]

They get back a bunch of them via Songs of Restoration.

I saw. My statement is still true. .-.

Actually is Song of Rest just otherwise deleted then? It only gives more spells. There was a whole feature here that's just gone. It wasn't my favorite or anything, but it shouldn't be pasted over.



FoI is much less necessary now that you only need to spend dice on failures. They got a bunch of useful new spells (like the ones I listed) so Magical Secrets is less necessary too. And with how easy proficiencies are to get in 1DD, JoAT is nearly a ribbon now.



So it might not be immediately obvious, but they are meant to serve the same function as a rogue in their archetypal party. But they don't get thieve's tools as a proficiency innately. Filling in with JoAT would have at least let them do this.

[Dork_Forge]

"Crippling," really? :smallsigh:

How about you try addressing the issues rather than replying snidely?

The Bard now has no input into how many inspirations they have and can do it significantly less for the majority of their career.

A Bard not being able to do the defining thing that makes them a Bard anywhere as near as much, especially when their subclasses also rely on that resource, is crippling.

[Psyren]

They've released a series of videos contextualizing the changes:

Bard Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0Qr1dsRXY)

Ranger Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wgHB-jWIA)

Rogue Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gazqHYb67Q4)

Feats Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_llX1LBZ8)

[PhoenixPhyre]

They've released a series of videos contextualizing the changes:

Bard Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0Qr1dsRXY)

Ranger Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wgHB-jWIA)

Rogue Dev Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gazqHYb67Q4)



Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Now it's "wade through 10s of minutes of video, no ability to search, reference, or otherwise refer back to unless you save specific timestamps". What's wrong with, you know, written documentation for a tabletop game?

[Dork_Forge]

I explicitly did; they don't need to do it as much, because it's going to be wasted a lot less. You haven't replied to that yet.

They made it easier to give people inspiration by making it a reaction.

They gave a new default option with the healing.

It still fuels subclasses and is meant to be backwards compatible.


'wasting it less' isn't good enough for extreme restriction, especially when they made it much easier to spend it.

A 5th level Bard using Bardic Inspiration three times a day doesn't feel like you're a Bard a 5th level Bard at all.

And a 19th level X taking a dip into it with a 13 Cha and getting a full 6 Inspirations, is utterly bizarre.

[Snowbluff]

Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Now it's "wade through 10s of minutes of video, no ability to search, reference, or otherwise refer back to unless you save specific timestamps". What's wrong with, you know, written documentation for a tabletop game?

If it makes you feel better, they didn't say a lot. :smalltongue:
Half of this is just him spelling out the features.

It does feel like a waste of time for something that could a sidebar though.

Why do they bother changing/nerfing articles? I feel like a lot of this could have been left alone to better effect. Like does PAM need to preclude spears? It's almost like they're making a lot of intentionally bad changes so they could look better when they're reverted or something.

[Xervous]

Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Now it's "wade through 10s of minutes of video, no ability to search, reference, or otherwise refer back to unless you save specific timestamps". What's wrong with, you know, written documentation for a tabletop game?

I may be cynical enough to point to it being YouTube getting them engagement metrics, like how you need a Google (or Apple) account for D&DB.

But yes, no relevant visuals? No video.

[Dienekes]

Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Now it's "wade through 10s of minutes of video, no ability to search, reference, or otherwise refer back to unless you save specific timestamps". What's wrong with, you know, written documentation for a tabletop game?

I will say it does allow me to put it on in the background while I work, which is a nice benefit.

But I do agree there are some downsides. I can’t say how many times I’ve tried to reference a part of a video, see that it’s somewhere between 10 minutes to an hour and just give up with the reference of “just trust me they say it somewhere in all this nonsense.”

[Psyren]

Moved this quote out of the video post to keep it clean for linkage in the OP:


How about you try addressing the issues rather than replying snidely?

The Bard now has no input into how many inspirations they have and can do it significantly less for the majority of their career.

A Bard not being able to do the defining thing that makes them a Bard anywhere as near as much, especially when their subclasses also rely on that resource, is crippling.

I explicitly did; they don't need to do it as much, because it's going to be wasted a lot less. You haven't replied to that yet.


Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Now it's "wade through 10s of minutes of video, no ability to search, reference, or otherwise refer back to unless you save specific timestamps". What's wrong with, you know, written documentation for a tabletop game?

I don't disagree which is why I've been helping out with timestamps and such. I'll do that again here when I have time.


They made it easier to give people inspiration by making it a reaction.

They gave a new default option with the healing.

It still fuels subclasses and is meant to be backwards compatible.


'wasting it less' isn't good enough for extreme restriction, especially when they made it much easier to spend it.

A 5th level Bard using Bardic Inspiration three times a day doesn't feel like you're a Bard a 5th level Bard at all.

And a 19th level X taking a dip into it with a 13 Cha and getting a full 6 Inspirations, is utterly bizarre.

A new option it didn't have before doesn't really matter, because if you still want to use it for inspirations and subclass features - your only options previously - you haven't lost the ability to do that.

PB/SR might take a bit longer to get to, but once you do it's quite a lot. And you're correct that Bard is more multiclass-friendly now which I like.

I'm not out to discount your feelings, put it in the survey. I do still believe "crippling" is hyperbolic/hysteric though.

[Jervis]

What have they done to my Lore Bard?! No Additional Magical Secrets?!? Aaaaaa!!!

Yeah but magical secrets from the base class was buffed into the stratosphere. I’m not sure how I feel about bards. Inspiration was nerfed a little. Their general casting is probably a lateral move even if I don’t think they get fairy fire any more. The fact they prepare spells now is a insane buff and late game the magical secrets rules will make them borked beyond belief. Also did they seriously make spell preparation this simple? I have mixed opinions, I need to see how they handle sorcerers but i’m not against changing spells prepared to be equal to spells per day.

Thank god for the sharpshooter nerf. Didn’t expect PAM and CBE to make it out of this untouched and the hit to damage with GWM is something I have mixed opinions on. I need to see how they do fighters but so far it seems like damage for melee fighters over all is dropping.

[Unoriginal]

Grappler looks spicy for monks. No save grapple AND you get advantage on future attacks?

And you get to deal both damage and grapple with one of your unarmed attacks, instead of one or the other.

That's seriously good.

[Abracadangit]

For those who haven't watched the videos explaining their class design decisions, here are some snippets from the Bard video to give you an idea of what they're like. These are real excerpts, verbatim. I am 100% not making these up.

Crawford: Here's the thing about Bards -- are we changing them? Yes. Are they receiving updates, in the form of modified class features? Also yes. But are these changes improvements? I'm glad to say -- the answer is also yes.

Todd: Wow.

Crawford: Let's take a look at Bardic Inspiration, a beloved class feature. It's still got all the features players crave -- it's helping friends boost their rolls, with the use of dice -- but now it's bringing so much more to the table.

Todd: Wow.

Crawford: Before, sometimes you'd use Bardic Inspiration, and it wouldn't be enough. Your teammate would roll their d20, then roll the Bardic Inspiration die, and they'd still fail, because the combined total would be less than the necessary DC, in which case that would mean their roll wouldn't succeed. After some serious playtesting, we decided to make some changes, and here's what we came up with, get ready for this -- you now use Bardic Inspiration as a reaction, when your teammate fails a roll.

Todd: Wow.

Crawford: This means a lot has changed. For starters, instead of it using your action, it now uses a reaction. That's not just on your turn, for those keeping track at home -- reactions can be used on ANYONE'S turn. This is some next-level stuff.

Todd: Wow.

Crawford: And by using it as a reaction when your teammate fails a roll, you're given this greater sense of getting more for your resource. Which resource am I talking about?

Todd: Wow.

Crawford: That's right, Todd -- Bardic Inspiration.

Todd: Wow.

Sarcasm aside, it was like watching molasses. Clearly they have to hit some desired runtime for these videos, and it felt like every sentence was given more words for the sake of more words. Oof. Maybe there are some valuable nuggets in the other videos, but I think I'm good.

I'm sort of on the same page as Dienekes -- some of these changes are cool (Rangers' non-concentration Hunter's Mark is rad), but this feels like things being shuffled around while my big gripes (not enough exploration/social across all classes, martials getting access to cooler moves in general) are probably too rock-the-boaty for 5.5. I'll hold final judgement until everything's said and done, but for now it's wild to see how things are moving in a slightly more Pathfindery direction, i.e. how "Influence" checks are now spelled out in a formalized way in the glossary. Interesting times!

[Dienekes]

I don't disagree which is why I've been helping out with timestamps and such. I'll do that again here when I have time.


The work of a champion, Psyren.

[Psyren]

Yeah but magical secrets from the base class was buffed into the stratosphere. I’m not sure how I feel about bards. Inspiration was nerfed a little. Their general casting is probably a lateral move even if I don’t think they get fairy fire any more.

They lost Faerie Fire (and some other things like Shatter) but gained Haste, Fly, Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Telepathic Bond, and a bunch of other goodies. I'd personally call it a buff overall but will need to go through the spell lists in more detail.


The fact they prepare spells now is a insane buff and late game the magical secrets rules will make them borked beyond belief. Also did they seriously make spell preparation this simple? I have mixed opinions, I need to see how they handle sorcerers but i’m not against changing spells prepared to be equal to spells per day.

I too wonder whether Sorcerer will be prepared, or the only spontaneous caster, or if they'll do something else to make them stand out.

[DarknessEternal]

I don't like that the dual wielder feat no longer allows 2 non-light weapons.

And Polearm Master is still disgustingly too strong for allowing bonus action attacks.

[paladinn]

Ok, I had a chance to briefly peruse the new UA. Forgive me if a lot of this has been discussed already. Here's what stuck out to me:

1. It definitely seems that all spells will be prepared going forward. Both bards and rangers used to have "spells known"; now they are prepared. Not a bad thing methinks.

2. The number of spells prepared now equals the number of available slots at each level. In 5e, your number of spells prepared were figured separately based on your spellcasting attribute+level or such. Now, evidently, if you have 5 L1 slots, you can prepare 5 L1 spells. Am I reading that right? It does simplify some things. But it also makes your attribute less important. A smarter wizard should be able to prepared more spells, IMO

3. Bards are said to be limited to Arcane spells of certain schools. But many of their "Restoration" spells aren't on that list. Is this chalked up to Magical Secrets or ?

4. Rangers still have D10 HD and a fighting style. This is good, but doesn't quite fit the "Expert" mold. I wonder what's going to be distinct/common to the Warrior group. Rangers also have less fighting style options, which I don't agree with.

5. Favored Enemy is way better in terms of effects. At-will Hunter's Mark with no concentration? Awesome! I do think this has lost a little of the Favored Enemy "flavor" though. Used to be rangers got big bonuses fighting all humanoids. This still needs some work.

6. Rangers get cantrips! This is sure to please those who like ranger-with-spells. I'm not one of them, but oh well. And I wonder why they don't get evocation spells.. Hmmm..

Those are my ponderings thus far.. I'm sure more are to come.. lol

[Hurrashane]

They lost Faerie Fire (and some other things like Shatter) but gained Haste, Fly, Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Telepathic Bond, and a bunch of other goodies. I'd personally call it a buff overall but will need to go through the spell lists in more detail.


Shatter is transmutation now, so bards still have it. Thunderwave also is now transmutation... A few spells have had their school changed

[wrn]

Some feats have received pretty interesting things (war caster force pas certain saves per LR, ritual caster normal speed ritual per LR, skulker blindsight). I am worried that the power attack feats have lost the power attack part. It seems they might be making it fighter-only or something...

[Hurrashane]

Some feats have received pretty interesting things (war caster force pas certain saves per LR, ritual caster normal speed ritual per LR, skulker blindsight). I am worried that the power attack feats have lost the power attack part. It seems they might be making it fighter-only or something...

That could be the warrior only thing. Maybe all warrior classes get a more generic power attack mechanic?

That could be interesting.

[Segev]

Having read the pdf of the UA, I find myself...largely pleasantly surprised by how much is well-done. There's decent amounts of clean-up, and the obvious-seeming flaws were cleansed by the glossary of what rules have changed.

I don't like Bards being prepared casters, but I also am unsure if it's not simply that every caster will be, now. I am curious what this means for sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards, if so. If they remain known-spells and spellbook-bound classes, then suddenly Bards are better spellcasters than any of them, which is a problem.

That said, it's kind-of interesting that they're making class spell lists out of the Arcane/Divine/Primal + School matrix. This implies no class-specific spells, but the Ranger (and its Hunter subclass) hints that (sub)class features can take iconic spells and make them something special in the right hands, while leaving the availability to other classes for those who want a dabbling of the flavor. Perhaps Paladins will get find steed automatically, and will get to do things with it other classes cannot.

Rogue had a lot of its interesting stuff moved forward just enough that I think mid-game Rogue is actually potentially, maybe worth pursuing all the way, rather than being a slog of levels 5-8 that you constantly have to debate multiclassing out of for more fun and cool things elsewhere that would let you do your concept at least as well. Not 100% sold, but it's an improvement. Sneak Attack has been nerfed to the extent that it no longer works off-turn, but dual wielding is now a property of Light weapons, and doesn't cost your bonus action (just giving you that no-mod-to-damage extra attack with the off-hand weapon as part of the attack action), so it's still there for the rogue to get two bites at the sneak attack apple with, right from level one. And now without having to sacrifice Cunning Action to do it.

Ranger is a spellcaster from level 1, which is nice. Prepared, which I think actually makes sense for them (Rangers being a spells-known caster was always a weird choice, to me, in 5e).

Favored Terrain is just plain gone; Favored Enemy is the old UA Favored Foe: Rangers automatically know hunter's mark and, for them, it doesn't require Concentration. I still would have preferred multiple-choice class features based on Favored Enemy / Terrain that were useful in most walks of the game (e.g. Favored Terrain: Desert might give resistance to fire damage, thus making the heat of the climate not a problem). Maybe that's something that can be done in subclasses. The Arctic Ranger, the Desert Ranger, the Seacoast Ranger. Same for Favored Enemies, perhaps: The Slayer subclass might get the mix-and-match features, or just make a series of X-Slayer subclasses: Aberration Slayer, Dragon Slayer, Beast Slayer, etc.

Jump is now an action. Anything less than 5 feet is 'difficult terrain,' and more than that is a Strength (Athletics or Acrobatics) check, DC 10, with the successful roll setting the long jump distance in feet (or the high jump distance in half of those feet, rounded down). Doesn't count against your movement, but can't be longer distance than your Speed, so it's basically a harder-to-pull-off Dash. It looks like the RAW mean you can't use Climb or (more importantly, considering Cloak of the Manta Ray and creatures known for leaping out of the water) Swim speeds as the limit, though I could see DMs ruling otherwise and it is worth bringing up in feedback to WotC whether that's intentional or not.

Climb Speeds explicitly can be used any time regular Speed could be. Swim Speeds lack such an explicit option. This may seem "obvious," but it actually gets weirdly important, because if you have a special speed (climb, fly, or swim are listed), you must choose which one you're using when you start a move. You can interrupt a move, still, with actions, then keep moving; that hasn't changed. But if you start off using your speed, you can't shift to using your climb or swim speed when you reach a wall or a pond.

Movement difficulties now are phrased as "each foot costs an extra foot," rather than as any sort of doubling. This is consistent wording, so difficult terrain is +1 foot per foot, and climbing or swimming is +1 foot per foot, and being Slowed is +1 foot per foot (you are Slowed, for example, when grappling a creature and dragging him around). So if you're climbing through difficult terrain, that's 3 feet per foot. If you're dragging a grappled creature up a cliff that counts as difficult terrain, while using your normal speed, that's 4 feet per foot.

Climb speeds and Swim speeds, obviously, remove that +1 foot per foot penalty in the respective kinds of movement. But if you start 10 feet from a pond, and want to go dive in because you're a Triton with a 30 foot swim speed, you may or may not be able to use your swim speed on land (it doesn't say you can't, but unlike climb, it doesn't explicitly say you can). If you don't, and use your normal speed, when you dive into the water, you're stuck using your normal speed and thus costing yourself +1 foot of available movement per foot actually swum, despite having a swim speed.

This does make class features that say, "Climbing and swimming do not cost you extra movement," actually better than having a feature that says, "You have a climb/swim speed equal to your speed." (Though a climb speed equal to your regular speed can juts mean you go ahead and use your climb speed all the time, since it can be used explicitly whenever your normal speed applies.)

But it is weird, and awkward. (Oh, and if you Dash, creating a second source of movement, each movement source can be a different speed. So you could use your land speed to get to the pond, swim 10 feet in the lats 20 feet of it, then Dash to get 60 feet of movement from your Cloak of the Manta Ray.)



Hiding is now a flat DC 15 Dexterity(Stealth) check, and you still record a successful roll because what you rolled is the DC for others to use the Search action to spot you with the Wisdom(Perception) check involved. This makes hiding a lot easier, because now it explicitly takes an action for even high-perception creatures to notice you. You only had to make a DC 15, and if they don't take the action, a passive perception 19 creature just doesn't get to spot you.

The Hidden and Invisible conditions both grant "Surprise," which means that if you are under them when you roll initiative, you get advantage on the initiative roll.

Invisible still has the wording that many have argued means that, even if you can "see" them despite their invisibility (e.g. with Blindsight or true seeing), the Invisible creature still has advantage on attacks against you and you still have disadvantage on attacks against him. The invisible creature also still gets advantage on initiative even though you can see him just fine. While it seems obvious to me that Invisible is a relative condition, I do hope they add clauses or rules that specify that these advantages only exist against those who can't see you, and "surprise" doesn't work if anybody on the enemy side can see you.

[huttj509]

3. Bards are said to be limited to Arcane spells of certain schools. But many of their "Restoration" spells aren't on that list. Is this chalked up to Magical Secrets or ?


There's a separate class feature at level 2 which is "bards get these restoration spells on their spells list, always prepared, not counting against spells prepared."

[Snowbluff]

Jump is now an action. Anything less than 5 feet is 'difficult terrain,' and more than that is a Strength (Athletics or Acrobatics) check, DC 10, with the successful roll setting the long jump distance in feet (or the high jump distance in half of those feet, rounded down). Doesn't count against your movement, but can't be longer distance than your Speed, so it's basically a harder-to-pull-off Dash. It looks like the RAW mean you can't use Climb or (more importantly, considering Cloak of the Manta Ray and creatures known for leaping out of the water) Swim speeds as the limit, though I could see DMs ruling otherwise and it is worth bringing up in feedback to WotC whether that's intentional or not.


Oh no I hate it. I really don't want the action to be the only way to jump. I like the fluidity of how it works now. I don't see why it wouldn't just cost more movement.

[Jervis]

They lost Faerie Fire (and some other things like Shatter) but gained Haste, Fly, Rope Trick, Mirror Image, Telepathic Bond, and a bunch of other goodies. I'd personally call it a buff overall but will need to go through the spell lists in more detail.



I too wonder whether Sorcerer will be prepared, or the only spontaneous caster, or if they'll do something else to make them stand out.

I seriously wonder how the hell they’ll handle Sorc and warlock. The lack of EB on any list makes me hopeful they’ll remove it as a cantrip altogether and make it a class feature like it should have been ages ago. Warlock being a prepared caster would make sense if they even keep spellcasting instead of just having invocations, personal I would prefer the latter because pact magic has a lot of annoying interactions.

As for sorcerer I have no idea how they’ll be handled if they do prepare spells. Since spells prepared seem to be based entirely on spells known now (unless i’m missing something) that means a sorcerer that does prepare spells would just be another wizard. Either wizard is gonna break the rules (shocking idea I know) or sorcerer is gonna end up the only spells known caster. Though the arcane list being a thing means that wizard exclusive spells aren’t gonna really be a thing any more unless sorcerer (maybe warlock if they keep casting) is like bard and they’re locked to, like, evocation, transmutation, conjuration, and abjuration or something. Personally I like that other people are stealing wizard toys but i’m very biased in that regard.

Other than that Shillelagh seemingly not being changed is a plus, nerfs to ranged sharpshooter builds are a plus. Feats seem mostly ok with a easy option to get medium armor and shield proficiency at level 1, which makes me a little bit less salty about that being removed from races since they actually put the option to get medium armor and shields at level 1 for anyone somewhere instead of removing it altogether. I’m kinda disappointed that Spiritual Weapon is still a spell instead of a cleric class feature since I was hoping that they were baking things the designers assume everyone of a given class is gonna do into their features now but that’s fine I guess. I’m not happy with level 20 features at all since they’re just a epic feat now but I suppose to does remove the problem of crappy capstones, I assume most level 20 features are just gonna be converted to feats so I can see it working if they make enough options. Over all this has me less wary than the questionable choices like crit rules and the like from the races UA.


Oh no I hate it. I really don't want the action to be the only way to jump. I like the fluidity of how it works now. I don't see why it wouldn't just cost more movement.

Yeah the action rules need to be changed. I like the idea of codifying uses for skills but making jump an action is just stupid. Same with knowledge checks, you have some more concrete rules for them now which is great but it’s a freaking action. Why is it an action. It’s never gonna be worth using as is.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Are they maybe changing how skill checks work, with regards to not being keyed to abilities anymore? The Jump [Action] says you make a DC 10 Strength check (Acrobatics or Athletics). Maybe they're decoupling which stats apply to which skills? A 3rd-level Thief - Rogue has the option to make a Dexterity check for Athletics. That might help non-CHA classes use stuff like intimidate.

Also, the Jump action is wild! Distance covered isn't limited by your ability score (only your speed), so that same rogue with a +10 in Acrobatics can potentially horizontal leap 30 feet.

For the Bard, did they lose Jack of all Trades' bonus to Initiative and caster level checks? It says you add half prof. bonus to "...any Ability Check that uses a Skill Proficiency you lack and that doesn't otherwise use your Proficiency Bonus". They now specify "Skill Proficiency you lack", which Initiative and flat Ability checks aren't part of (maybe I'm misreading?).
Also, are bards too "Reaction" heavy now? BI is a reaction (to boost or to heal), so Lore Bards now have to decide whether to save the reaction for: BI, Cutting Words, Counterspell, etc... not sure if that's better or worse than BI as a bonus action (I'm assuming "Magical Secrets - Arcane" will still be selected by all for Counterspell). Speaking of which, Lore Bards no longer get "Additional Magical Secrets" so maybe it won't be an issue until later in their career.

[Segev]

There's a separate class feature at level 2 which is "bards get these restoration spells on their spells list, always prepared, not counting against spells prepared."

Also, Magical Secrets is now, "Choose one of Arcane, Divine, or Primal. Up to two of the spells you prepare each day can be any spell on the chosen list, regardless of school." And they get a Further MAgical Secrets that gives them another choice on that list (but not the same one a second time) that up to two other spells they prepare can come from. So it's much broader in one sense than base 5e's Magical Secrets, in that it's a big open door to preparing just about any spell they might want, but there will always be SOME spells that a given Bard cannot prepare. For example, if a Bard took Divine and Primal as his two choices, any spell that was only on the Arcane list and was Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, or Necromancy would still be out of his reach.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah the action rules need to be changed. I like the idea of codifying uses for skills but making jump an action is just stupid. Same with knowledge checks, you have some more concrete rules for them now which is great but it’s a freaking action. Why is it an action. It’s never gonna be worth using as is.

Maybe the thought is you'd only be concerned about that when playing turn-by-turn?

[huttj509]

I think the motivation behind a lot of the prepared spell changes is to reduce the level up "analysis paralysis" for spellcasting classes. Everyone has choices at times, but for spell known casters that tended in my experience to be a major delay point that people would take a week to narrow the choices down to 4.

[Segev]

I think the motivation behind a lot of the prepared spell changes is to reduce the level up "analysis paralysis" for spellcasting classes. Everyone has choices at times, but for spell known casters that tended in my experience to be a major delay point that people would take a week to narrow the choices down to 4.

I mean, the spells are just suggestions, quite specifically.

[Ignimortis]

Maybe the thought is you'd only be concerned about that when playing turn-by-turn?

But the tactical part of the game is already the only one that works properly. Any downgrade to it is more meaningful than changes to parts of the game that barely work as is.

[Snowbluff]

I hate Rogue.

I hate loss of reaction sneak attacks.

I hate that Thief lost bonus action flasking people for Sneak Attack damage.

Nothing much to say say. Make changes that didn't need to happen to make cool interactions not* work, and I won't be happy. :smallannoyed:

[EggKookoo]

Anyone notice the change to inspiration? You get it on a nat-1 now, not a nat-20.

Also, I like the direction of the barkskin change but the real problem with it is that it's a concentration spell.


I hate loss of reaction sneak attacks.

I suspect a rogue subclass will grant reaction-based Sneak Attacks.

[Ignimortis]

I hate Rogue.

I hate loss of reaction sneak attacks.

I hate that Thief lost bonus action flasking people for Sneak Attack damage.

Nothing much to say say. Make changes that didn't need to happen to make cool interactions not* work, and I won't be happy. :smallannoyed:
At risk of repeating myself, as of this and previous UA, WotC seems to be going the PF2 route. But not the PF2 route with pretty decent balance and all party members being capable of contributing in most situations. The PF2 route of wording things most obtusely so that you can't combine any rules creatively and get combinations or capabilities the developers did not intend, as well as making as many things closed self-contained buttons that cannot interact with other features.

[Amechra]

I'm actually impressed at how they managed to make everything feel slightly worse.

[Woggle]

Overall, I feel okay about it so far. Changes to Thief's Fast Hands I don't really like. Removing the level 3 and level 10 options from Hunter I REALLY don't like (Conjure Barrage is a trash spell, and Hunters don't get a melee option at 10? What!?). Base class changes are overall okay, but I agree with some comments about Bardic Inspiration. I think it scaling with proficiency bonus winds up with too few uses early, and makes dips to good later. I think it should be changed to half your Bardic Inspiration Die size (so 3 uses level one, 6 uses when it increases to d12). That way it scales with class level, not character level, and if there are any martial-ish subclasses in the future, they aren't so penalized if they want to focus strength or dexterity over charisma.

On the feat side, why is heavy armour proficiency a level 4 feat, while light and medium and shields a level one feat? Why is Dual Wielder even worse than it was? Why is the third Crossbow Expert feature redundant with Two-Weapon Fighting? Why is Great-Weapon Fighting still a ****ty re-roll? However, I do like the removal of the base two-weapon fighting bonus action requirement, however.

EDIT: If more casters are going to be prepared casters, I do like the change to spells prepared being the same as spell slots. A little more restrictive than just a set number of spells prepared of any level.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm just looking at this and going "what made them think Epic Boons is a good idea? do they think people won't recognize feats when dressed up in a different name and put at level 20? especially when they're lacking in substance or oomph?"

like this just seems to be a bunch of strange decisions with no clear logic behind them.

[Amechra]

Why is the third Crossbow Expert feature redundant with Two-Weapon Fighting?

Because anyone can take Crossbow Expert, while the Great And Mighty Two-Weapon Fighting feat is a Warrior-specific thing.

I'm just amused that they left the problematic part of Sharpshooter in the game.

[paladinn]

I'm actually impressed at how they managed to make everything feel slightly worse.

Which is why this is all playtest :)

[Snowbluff]

At risk of repeating myself, as of this and previous UA, WotC seems to be going the PF2 route. But not the PF2 route with pretty decent balance and all party members being capable of contributing in most situations. The PF2 route of wording things most obtusely so that you can't combine any rules creatively and get combinations or capabilities the developers did not intend, as well as making as many things closed self-contained buttons that cannot interact with other features.

Yeah balance is a red herring most of the time to begin with. Them just closing off options for no discernible reason is definitely just putting people in a box. The same goes for things like Jump or Study taking an action. They deliberately looked at one of the worst parts of PF2 and decided to run with it.

As above, slightly worse everything is about right.

[PhoenixPhyre]

like this just seems to be a bunch of strange decisions with no clear logic behind them.



I'm just amused that they left the problematic part of Sharpshooter in the game.

As usual, new!WotC lacks both vision and implementation. Half-baked, slapped together with no rhyme or reason.

Personally, the changes to movement and Stealth make this entire thing a no-go for me, and the rest doesn't help either. Fludity of movement is a key selling point; PF2e/earlier D&D style "move as an action" thing is just pain and clunky. And Stealth being basically automatic (seriously, a DC 15 Stealth check is trivial for most rogues) just reduces things to a solved game. And keeping the bad part of sharpshooter around is a :wtf-owl: moment.

[Psyren]

Also, Magical Secrets is now, "Choose one of Arcane, Divine, or Primal. Up to two of the spells you prepare each day can be any spell on the chosen list, regardless of school." And they get a Further MAgical Secrets that gives them another choice on that list (but not the same one a second time) that up to two other spells they prepare can come from. So it's much broader in one sense than base 5e's Magical Secrets, in that it's a big open door to preparing just about any spell they might want, but there will always be SOME spells that a given Bard cannot prepare. For example, if a Bard took Divine and Primal as his two choices, any spell that was only on the Arcane list and was Abjuration, Conjuration, Evocation, or Necromancy would still be out of his reach.

This is a great point - because Magical Secrets is based on lists now instead of specific spells, it scales with you rather than you being forced into grabbing only spells that you have access to at the time you get the feature. This does mean that Lore losing AMS is less of a nerf.

[Jervis]

Maybe the thought is you'd only be concerned about that when playing turn-by-turn?

Then why make it an action? The only time action economy matters is in a fight. Why make the primary theoretical use for the Int skills, learning weaknesses for enemies, a action thus rendering it completely useless?

[EggKookoo]

Then why make it an action? The only time action economy matters is in a fight. Why make the primary theoretical use for the Int skills, learning weaknesses for enemies, a action thus rendering it completely useless?

I guess it could be argued that doing so requires a certain amount of focus and time?

I'm not trying to defend the decision so much as understand it.

[Hurrashane]

Then why make it an action? The only time action economy matters is in a fight. Why make the primary theoretical use for the Int skills, learning weaknesses for enemies, a action thus rendering it completely useless?

Given that learning weaknesses of a creature is an ability that requires a spell and a sixth level hunter ranger I'd say being able to do that as only an action seems pretty good.

Taking an action to learn a creatures weaknesses then using a free action to tell the rest of the party can definitely help the party not waste actions on things that are not very effective.

[Jervis]

I guess it could be argued that doing so requires a certain amount of focus and time?

I'm not trying to defend the decision so much as understand it.

This is one of my biggest gripes so far. It was a free action in 3.5 and I assume 4E was similar. This is something I hope they get called out for in the playtest.

That aside some other problems. I saw the buffs to bardic inspiration as a whole so I was hesitant to give my opinions initially but I don’t like it. You will consistently have one to two fewer uses of inspiration at all levels for no reason and you don’t get the ability to recover them on a short rest until 7. Yeah the fact you can inspire as a reaction is good and eventually making it so the feature isn’t spent on a 1 (realistically that’ll come up once or twice a session at mid to high levels so it’s not inconsequential) is a buff but the strict reduction in uses until level 17 means any subclass that relies on it is kneecapped heavily. Swordsbard is going to need a full rework now I’d imagine.


Given that learning weaknesses of a creature is an ability that requires a spell and a sixth level hunter ranger I'd say being able to do that as only an action seems pretty good.

Taking an action to learn a creatures weaknesses then using a free action to tell the rest of the party can definitely help the party not waste actions on things that are not very effective.

A: Those are nonfeatures on the level of trapfinding and shouldn’t be a thing.

B: The class who’s best at Int skills is also the one with the most options for total shutdown of encounters, so wizard is gonna bother when Hypnotic Pattern exists

C: This rule implies that people need to brain blast like Jimmy Neutron to remember anything

[Woggle]

Because anyone can take Crossbow Expert, while the Great And Mighty Two-Weapon Fighting feat is a Warrior-specific thing.

I'm just amused that they left the problematic part of Sharpshooter in the game.

Ah, right, I missed that. I'm glad that power attack was removed from both Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, but I agree about the rest of Sharpshooter also being iffy. I don't like what they've done (or haven't changed) with all the ranged feats (crossbow xp., sharpshooter, spell sniper), where instead of having interesting abilities, they just remove the downsides to ranged combat. Adding melee shooting to Sharpshooter just makes it worse for me.


That aside some other problems. I saw the buffs to bardic inspiration as a whole so I was hesitant to give my opinions initially but I don’t like it. You will consistently have one to two fewer uses of inspiration at all levels for no reason and you don’t get the ability to recover them on a short rest until 7. Yeah the fact you can inspire as a reaction is good and eventually making it so the feature isn’t spent on a 1 (realistically that’ll come up once or twice a session at mid to high levels so it’s not inconsequential) is a buff but the strict reduction in uses until level 17 means any subclass that relies on it is kneecapped heavily. Swordsbard is going to need a full rework now I’d imagine.

I really think it would be helped if they changed it to scale with half your Bardic Inspiration Die size (3 at level one, 6 at whenever you get d12). Still slightly less uses if you were maxing charisma (early), but not so punishing. And no weird multiclassing interactions.

[Psyren]

Then why make it an action? The only time action economy matters is in a fight. Why make the primary theoretical use for the Int skills, learning weaknesses for enemies, a action thus rendering it completely useless?

Don't forget this clause though:

"The DM may override this requirement and allow a particular Ability Check to be made as part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all."

I know my GMs would still allow knowledge/recall to not need an action the way they do currently. I wouldn't mind if they had a suggested list of Action/BA/Nonaction skill use though.

[Warder]

What a complete snorefest! It's not as if it's devoid of good ideas, not saying that at all, but no part of this sparks the imagination. It's 5e with a new coat of paint and even more depth shaved off the top. I look at the Feats section and it's as if WotC just slept the last eight years away. Geez.

[Woggle]

Oh, and the level 6 Hunter feature is really bad, too. How often is learning resistance, immunities, and weaknesses actually useful? Just like the aforementioned use of Int skills needing to spend an action.

[Hurrashane]

Oh, and the level 6 Hunter feature is really bad, too. How often is learning resistance, immunities, and weaknesses actually useful? Just like the aforementioned use of Int skills needing to spend an action.

Depending on how often you fight monsters with those, it varies. Depending on how much a player metagames, it varies.

I always thought it was a neat feature of the Monster Slayer ranger, so I enjoy it here.

[Woggle]

Depending on how often you fight monsters with those, it varies. Depending on how much a player metagames, it varies.

I always thought it was a neat feature of the Monster Slayer ranger, so I enjoy it here.

I like the flavour, but I really don't think it holds up as the entire feature the Hunter gets at that level. The Monster Slayer gets additional capabilities when it gets it, which is a better way to do it imo.

[lall]

Happy the bard (and lore bard) keep all their good stuff. And they got rid of Countercharm as the cherry on top.

[Hurrashane]

I like the flavour, but I really don't think it holds up as the entire feature the Hunter gets at that level. The Monster Slayer gets additional capabilities when it gets it, which is a better way to do it imo.

...No? They just get to, as an action, learn those things (as long as the creature isn't hidden from divination magic). None of the Monster Slayer abilities use the Hunter's Sense ability.

A hunter ranger can gain that knowledge when they use hunter's mark.

[Psyren]

Hunter Changes:

Level 3: "We realize everyone was picking Colossus Slayer so just go with that."
Level 6: The usefulness of this is going to vary wildly depending on what your DM allows Knowledge checks to do.
Level 10: Always having a bad spell prepped for free does not make it better.
Level 14: You are now a 5th-level rogue.

It's better than the old one, but not by much. Their Conjure Barrage spell should let them add their ability modifier to the damage, and SHD should let you choose the Evasion option instead for archers.

[deadman1204]

More bland samey simplification, removing more choices and flavor.

Making everything ultra simple and the same is BAD game design.

[Woggle]

...No? They just get to, as an action, learn those things (as long as the creature isn't hidden from divination magic). None of the Monster Slayer abilities use the Hunter's Sense ability.

A hunter ranger can gain that knowledge when they use hunter's mark.

Sorry, I meant that when Monster Slayers get Hunter's Sense at level 3, they also get Slayer's Prey. Whereas the only feature that Hunters get [at level 6] is Hunter's Lore. I wasn't commenting on action economy, though you are right that that is an advantage of the Hunter.

[Woggle]

Hunter Changes:

Level 3: "We realize everyone was picking Colossus Slayer so just go with that."
Level 6: The usefulness of this is going to vary wildly depending on what your DM allows Knowledge checks to do.
Level 10: Always having a bad spell prepped for free does not make it better.
Level 14: You are now a 5th-level rogue.

It's better than the old one, but not by much. Their Conjure Barrage spell should let them add their ability modifier to the damage, and SHD should let you choose the Evasion option instead for archers.

I will say that the one thing I like about the Hunter changes is the half-damage redirect at level 14. It at least changes it a bit compared to Rogue. But I really miss the choose-an-option style, even if some options were very seldom chosen. Spell-slot dependent Conjure Barrage with no melee option really irks me.

[Hurrashane]

Hunter Changes:

Level 3: "We realize everyone was picking Colossus Slayer so just go with that."
Level 6: The usefulness of this is going to vary wildly depending on what your DM allows Knowledge checks to do.
Level 10: Always having a bad spell prepped for free does not make it better.
Level 14: You are now a 5th-level rogue.

It's better than the old one, but not by much. Their Conjure Barrage spell should let them add their ability modifier to the damage, and SHD should let you choose the Evasion option instead for archers.

Why does the level 6 feature rely on knowledge checks?

It gives you that knowledge. "When a creature is marked by your hunter's mark you know if the creature has any immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities and, if the creature has any, you know what they are."

No check needed. If it has any of those three things the DM is supposed to give you that information.

[Arenabait]

TL;DR: on my thoughts

All 3 classes lack ribbons or out of combat utility other than expertise, leading to a very soulless, clinical, wargame-y feel


Bard has been pulled too far from the fantasy of a performer who buffs and strengthens their Allies with their art, and is now just mage with heals

Ranger is just fighter druid now, and it feels bad (Hunter also lost all choice and with it most of the flavor)

Rogue is mostly okay other than the soullessness of no ribbons or flavor heavy stuff


The feats are mostly good, the lack of flavor in some (sharpshooter, keen mind, etc.) is hurtful but the flavor is made up for with other feats (shield master, durable, ritual caster which is overturned but cool) and the rebalancing of some (shield master and Skulker anyone?)

The epic boons are as balanced as a one sided see-saw and even if they were balanced they need to be scrapped in favor of proper capstones. Preferably delivered as part of subclasses for more diversity in capstones.

[Psyren]

Why does the level 6 feature rely on knowledge checks?

It gives you that knowledge. "When a creature is marked by your hunter's mark you know if the creature has any immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities and, if the creature has any, you know what they are."

No check needed. If it has any of those three things the DM is supposed to give you that information.

You misunderstood me - I'm saying that feature's usefulness depends on whether your DM gives you that info via knowledge checks anyway. If they do, then the feature lets you bypass the check (which you could probably ace with Expertise anyway, you get 4 of them) but otherwise does nothing. If they don't, then the feature becomes vital as getting that info might be hard otherwise. And if they let you do this check for some monsters but not others, or the check varies in difficulty depending on the monster, the feature will land somewhere in the middle.

In other words, I agree the feature gets you that info without a check, but whether that's useful or not depends on what you would get WITH a check and how hard that check is.

[Segev]

I feel weird to be defending this, but I don't see this as "making everything super-simple and bland." I am cautiously optimistic based on this, as there's a lot of clean-up of what were scattered random rules into more concise packages, the feats being acknowledged as just something people use is nice, and making ASI into a repeatable feat is a non-change that still feels a little cleaner.

Ranger still needs work, but this is better than it was.

While I liked the janky way grappling worked in base 5e, I acknowledge that this is probably a better way to go about it. Grappler seems more like a worthwhile feat, written by people who knew what the grappling rules actually were, now.

The movement rules are wonky, but I get the feeling this is "we tried to make them clearer, and forgot some big corner cases" rather than any deliberate change to how they actually work.


I do wish Mounted Combat would stop trying to recreate base benefits from 3.5 with the stupid mounted attack thing, and just make what they're calling Veer into, "Whenever your steed would take damage, you may choose to take the damage instead." Either that, or take the sidekick rules and make them something you are flat-out told to apply to mounts.


This is hardly perfect, but I don't see worrying signs of degradation to the system in it. I think they're going to need to revisit their prepared spells rules, but we can wait and see what the other spellcasters are doing before I get too up in arms over it. Certainly, I don't see this as "everything is more bland," though. :smallconfused:

[Woggle]

Why does the level 6 feature rely on knowledge checks?

It gives you that knowledge. "When a creature is marked by your hunter's mark you know if the creature has any immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities and, if the creature has any, you know what they are."

No check needed. If it has any of those three things the DM is supposed to give you that information.

I was just referencing the addition of the Study [Action], and how needing to spend an action makes it bad. I can see how that led to confusion. The Hunter not needing an action or a check is nice. I just don't think it's enough for the entire level.

[Hurrashane]

You misunderstood me - I'm saying that feature's usefulness depends on whether your DM gives you that info via knowledge checks anyway. If they do, then the feature lets you bypass the check (which you could probably ace with Expertise anyway, you get 4 of them) but otherwise does nothing. If they don't, then the feature becomes vital as getting that info might be hard otherwise. And if they let you do this check for some monsters but not others, or the check varies in difficulty depending on the monster, the feature will land somewhere in the middle.

In other words, I agree the feature gets you that info without a check, but whether that's useful or not depends on what you would get WITH a check and how hard that check is.

Ah, I see.

I still find it's a pretty useful ability but, like most abilities that aren't universally useful, it's usefulness will vary on campaign.

I feel if there's a hunter ranger in the party a DM should probably stick to "it requires an action to learn about this creature" making the hunter ranger shine in that area. But how people feel the game should be played and how people play are usually entirely different.

[windgate]

I am really liking some of the changes here.

Some of the top tier feats have been toned down but still remain useful (such as great weapon master) and the weaker feats seem more useful. There have been some interesting tweaks to core classes, no concentration on hunters mark for rangers being an example of a good one. I like the changes to bardic inspiration uses as well (baseline option to heal as a bonus action without using a spell slot).

Giving more instances of expertise also somewhat mitigates my complaints about the skill check system (namely the "floor" for skill check specialists, ie experts).

It looks like the are currently moving to give classes more stuff to do with bonus actions and reactions.

I am looking forwards to the warrior UA at this point. Still really hoping we will eventually get some more options to better imitate the 4e's warlord gameplay. Perhaps they will fully shift resource recovery to Proficiency bonus / long rest.

[Psyren]

TL;DR: on my thoughts

All 3 classes lack ribbons or out of combat utility other than expertise, leading to a very soulless, clinical, wargame-y feel

That stuff rightfully is the province of the ability check system, which all three classes are very useful at. Ribbons are just that, ribbons, i.e. unnecessary.



Bard has been pulled too far from the fantasy of a performer who buffs and strengthens their Allies with their art, and is now just mage with heals

The spells are performances. Just because the magic has the same effect doesn't mean it's brought about the same way. Fluff is fluff.



Ranger is just fighter druid now, and it feels bad (Hunter also lost all choice and with it most of the flavor)

I agree Hunter needs more work, but the base Ranger is miles ahead of the PHB one.

[Arkhios]

I... don't know what to say. The changes presented in this second Playtest article alone are too numerous that I'm at a loss of words. I really don't know whether I like or hate all that I'm seeing.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't like that the dual wielder feat no longer allows 2 non-light weapons.

And Polearm Master is still disgustingly too strong for allowing bonus action attacks.

Interestingly, Thri-kreen can now use both pole-arm mastery bonus action AND the dual-wielding extra attack on the same turn. The dual-wielding change is definitely interesting, but I'm not sure they really thought through all the consequences.

[Segev]

Interestingly, Thri-kreen can now use both pole-arm mastery bonus action AND the dual-wielding extra attack on the same turn. The dual-wielding change is definitely interesting, but I'm not sure they really thought through all the consequences.

Can they wield a light weapon in each hand that isn't using a polearm? If so, neat catch!

[GooeyChewie]

Interestingly, Thri-kreen can now use both pole-arm mastery bonus action AND the dual-wielding extra attack on the same turn. The dual-wielding change is definitely interesting, but I'm not sure they really thought through all the consequences.

I think that's more of an issue with Thri-kreen being weird than with the dual-wielding update.

[Oramac]

All right, here's my thoughts. They're LONG so, spoiler tags!


These classes now get subclass features at the same levels (3/6/10/14/18; classes with L20 capstones now get them at 18th level)
Spellcasting: The way preparing spells is worded, you MUST prepare the number of spells for the spell slots you have. So as a 5th level bard, say, I cannot prepare 9 1st level spells and no 2nd or 3rd level spells. As written, I have to prepare 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 2 3rd level spells. This is really dumb.
Ability Modifiers: I ***HATE*** the removal of ability modifiers from class features. Other than skill checks and save DCs, there is literally zero incentive to pump up the so called “primary ability”. I know checks and save DCs are important. But they don’t FEEL the same as a class feature that uses the ability modifier.
Starting equipment is still an (apparently) random number of gold pieces, or take the listed items. Doesn’t really mesh with their stated goal for backgrounds, but whatever.
Where’s the out of combat utility? The Rangery things that make a Ranger ranger better? That make a rogue do rogue **** better? Make a bard more bardy?


Bardinc Inspiration: overall I’m good with this, though it does feel a little wonky.
Prepared Spells: See my notes on spellcasting in General. Otherwise, I’m ok with this. The change to Arcane spell list is a bit jarring, but nothing I can’t get used to.
JoAT: I really hate how, as written, it does not apply to initiative or counterspell. It occurs to me that this may have been intentional.
LORE: Cunning Inspiration: actually pretty cool. It’s basically advantage on the BI die.
LORE: Imp Cutting Words: Oh wait. Ok. We have to wait until halfway through the game to have an incentive to increase our **PRIMARY ABILITY**. (I know ability checks and save DCs; see above in General)


Prepared Spells: same as General and Bard
Favored Enemy: freakin sweet. Not as thematic, to be sure, but infinitely more useful.
Fighting Style: based on that second paragraph, I have a feeling this IS in fact the Warrior signature feature, but Rangers get it as well.
Roving/Tireless/Nature’s Veil/Foe Slayer: all awesome. Especially Tireless with the new Exhausted condition (see below).
HUNTER: Multiattack: Hmm! Now this sets an interesting precedent. Being able to downcast spells. I’m not opposed to it, but would need to see it in play to really be sure.


Sneak Attack: definitely don’t like removal of OA sneak attacks. Otherwise, I like it.
Subtle Strikes: Essentially, permanent flanking. Got it. Seems OP considering the Sneak Attack wording, but it’s simple enough to get advantage as-is that it’s probably not too big a deal.
THIEF: Use Magic Device: four attuned items is neat, as is using charged items without burning a charge. Otherwise, I’ve not really played a Thief, so I can’t really say.


Level Requirements: not a fan. I get it. It makes sense. Still not a fan.
Everything is a half-feat now. Kinda removes the demand for a full ASI, but also makes starting or bumping to an odd number ability less of an issue.
Dual Wielder: they removed the AC bonus. Sad face. And the “treat non-light as light” thing will largely go unused. I’ve almost never seen anyone give a crap about this anyway.
Durable: Holy Crap this is powerful. Especially combined with Epic Boon of Recovery (assuming you hit 20th level). Speaking of….
Epic Boons: Meh. They’re there. But they don’t really add anything flavorful to the class/subclass to make me care. I like (some) of the capstones because they take the (sub)class and say, “here. You stuck it out. Now you’re the most baddest ass badass <class> to ever walk the land!”.
Fighting Style: Protection: It’s both a nerf and a buff. Nerf b/c it’s no longer disadvantage. Buff because it now stacks with DA if it can be imposed in some other way.
Great Weapon Master: BOOOORRING! Why remove the -5/+10 part? That was a fun and meaningful choice. Now it’s not even a decision. You just do it if you haven’t yet. Boring!
Sharpshooter: See GWM. Same thing. Though I suppose it’s nice to never have DA on a ranged weapon attack.
Speedster: It’s Mobile, but worse. Not provoking OAs was one of the most awesome reasons to take Mobile. Now it’s lackluster, at best.
Spell Sniper: Sharpshooter, for spells. Meh.


What the **** is wrong with an ability check just being an ability check?!? We don’t need more actions! At best, just make a table of “suggested checks for each ability” or some such thing.
Barkskin: Bonus action is better. THP is more useful but significantly less thematic. Not a fan, even if it is better.
Exhausted [Condition]: Much better!! Now berserker barbarians might actually get to use Frenzy (assuming they still have it when that UA comes out)
Guidance: WORSE! The reaction part is fine. The once per long rest part is most definitely NOT!
Heroic Inspiration: Halflings get screwed. It only applies to the d20 “used for the test’s total, not a d20 that was rerolled or discarded”. Bummer.
Influence [Action]: See my first point. But let me reiterate. This is ****ing stupid. We don’t need more actions. This stuff already works fine as-is. This is changing it for the sake of changing it with no real meaning or purpose.
Magic [Action]: See above. Do I need to repeat myself again?
Search/Study [Action]: here we go again…

Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic for 5.5e, though there's still a LOT of work to be done.

[Dr.Samurai]

Jump being an Action is absolute madness. What in the world are they thinking?

So now certain hazards aren't just obstacles that require a different movement, it's actual action denial. Instead of looking awesome because my barbarian can easily leap over a pit and attack the monster on the other end, he will just leap over the pit and then stand there.

This was actually an area where Str-based characters had an advantage over others (jump being limited by Strength score/modifier). Strength characters can move over certain obstacles more easily during combat because they can jump multiple squares. Making it an Action means it probably won't be used in combat, and players will decide to fall back on ranged attacks (dexterity wins here) or magic.

And while Athletics checks are Str-based, the DC is 10, and all three classes here can throw Expertise on it. And yes, anyone with Expertise should be good at that thing, but these seem to me like pointless changes that are actually a step backward from the Strength score having a niche to itself.

At least Grapple DCs are based on Strength (from what we can see under Unarmed Strike).

[Sandeman]

Did they remove the -5/+10 modifiers from GWM/SS just because it now is a default feature that everyone can use without needing any feat?

[Psyren]

All classes now get subclass features at the same levels (3/6/10/14/18; classes with L20 capstones now get them at 18th level)

We don't actually know this for sure. These three get their subclass at 3rd level (as they all did in the 2014 PHB), but Sorcerers, Clerics and Warlocks might not.


Spellcasting: The way preparing spells is worded, you MUST prepare the number of spells for the spell slots you have. So as a 5th level bard, say, I cannot prepare 9 1st level spells and no 2nd or 3rd level spells. As written, I have to prepare 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 2 3rd level spells. This is really dumb.

I do agree with this. An easy fix would simply be to add "of the same level or lower" to the "Prepared Spells" sub-feature.



Where’s the out of combat utility? The Rangery things that make a Ranger ranger better? That make a rogue do rogue **** better? Make a bard more bardy?

Expertise does all of these.



Fighting Style: based on that second paragraph, I have a feeling this IS in fact the Warrior signature feature, but Rangers get it as well.

I hope so. Fighting Styles for Monks would be pretty sweet :smallcool:



Subtle Strikes: Essentially, permanent flanking. Got it. Seems OP considering the Sneak Attack wording, but it’s simple enough to get advantage as-is that it’s probably not too big a deal.

It's even better than flanking as it works on ranged attacks. It even lets you sneak attack from long range as long as there's an ally adjacent.

[Segev]

Jump being an Action is absolute madness. What in the world are they thinking?

So now certain hazards aren't just obstacles that require a different movement, it's actual action denial. Instead of looking awesome because my barbarian can easily leap over a pit and attack the monster on the other end, he will just leap over the pit and then stand there.

This was actually an area where Str-based characters had an advantage over others (jump being limited by Strength score/modifier). Strength characters can move over certain obstacles more easily during combat because they can jump multiple squares. Making it an Action means it probably won't be used in combat, and players will decide to fall back on ranged attacks (dexterity wins here) or magic.

And while Athletics checks are Str-based, the DC is 10, and all three classes here can throw Expertise on it. And yes, anyone with Expertise should be good at that thing, but these seem to me like pointless changes that are actually a step backward from the Strength score having a niche to itself.

At least Grapple DCs are based on Strength (from what we can see under Unarmed Strike).

While I agree with you on the issue with jumping meaning you can't attack, I think what they were thinking was that they would make jumping a more difficult dash. Note that it doesn't count against your movement, but can't exceed your speed in distance. The best you can thus do is move your speed with a jump.

They also were probably trying to put a stop to people jumping everywhere to avoid difficult terrain. I don't know that that really happened, but it was technically possible in the RAW.

Personally, I don't see it as a problem.

I do like that they gave an actual mechanic for what the check should be. Rather than "The DM might let you roll to jump further. How much further? Not even he knows!"

[Psyren]

I like that Acrobatics proficiency applies to jumping now, but I definitely don't like it being an Action or codifying what happens on a failure.

[Oramac]

We don't actually know this for sure. These three get their subclass at 3rd level (as they all did in the 2014 PHB), but Sorcerers, Clerics and Warlocks might not.

True. What I meant to say is that classes are now (seemingly) going to be homogenized across their Class Group with regards to when they get subclass features. For example, in the 2014 PHB Rangers got theirs at 7/11/15, not 6/10/14 as in the UA. So they're making Class Groups similar in progression. IDK if I like this or not.

[Psyren]

True. What I meant to say is that classes are now (seemingly) going to be homogenized across their Class Group with regards to when they get subclass features. For example, in the 2014 PHB Rangers got theirs at 7/11/15, not 6/10/14 as in the UA. So they're making Class Groups similar in progression. IDK if I like this or not.

We can't say this for sure either. Take the Priest group - in the original PHB, all three of these classes got their subclass at different levels (Cleric 1, Druid 2, Paladin 3). They might change that, or it might be the same as it was. (Though I suppose Paladins swearing an Oath at 1st level and Druids joining a Circle at 1st level wouldn't be a big deal either.)

All we do know for sure is that every subclass will grant 4 subclass features now.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I like that Acrobatics proficiency applies to jumping now, but I definitely don't like it being an Action or codifying what happens on a failure.

Still a strength check for the jump, though (except for the Thief), which is odd. I wonder how skills and ability relations will be (maybe you can use STR for intimidate now?). I'd like for "Dex to jump skill checks" to be applied to each of the "experts", but I do like the thief movement abilities overall. But yeah, as an action it's odd.

[Dr.Samurai]

While I agree with you on the issue with jumping meaning you can't attack, I think what they were thinking was that they would make jumping a more difficult dash. Note that it doesn't count against your movement, but can't exceed your speed in distance. The best you can thus do is move your speed with a jump.
Currently:

Move - Can be a jump, up to your speed
Action - Can Dash --> can then jump up to your speed

1D&D:

Move - Cannot be a jump
Action - Can jump, up to your speed

What is the improvement here? I'm not seeing it. (This doesn't even touch the fact that by Strength 20 I can jump 4 squares without a check, whereas now I'd have to roll an Athletics check of 20 to do that, the equivalent of a Hard DC lol, what a joke.) One option would be to let characters use their Strength score in place of a roll if they want.

They also were probably trying to put a stop to people jumping everywhere to avoid difficult terrain. I don't know that that really happened, but it was technically possible in the RAW.
Why is this a problem though? I did this in our Avernus game several times. If you don't clear the difficult terrain it's an Acrobatics check to stop from falling Prone, which is a risk. If you do clear it, awesome, you're a strong guy that can jump over stuff.

Personally, I don't see it as a problem.
Strength characters need better options, not action denial.

[Waazraath]

Some hits - I like for example most changes to feats, the less used got better and most overtuned got tuned down (looking f.i. at the-5/+10 ones and bonus attack from CBE), and I like how two weapon fighting now leads to 1 light an 1 non light weapon (much more flavorfull resembling rapier/parrying dagger or katana/wakazashi combinations).

Some misses - the epic boons seem terrible to me as capstones, far to weak. Misty step 1/rest, damn, that's a racial ability you can get from level 1.

Overall: pathetic to be honest, whether you look at it as 5.5 or 6e, if this is the best they can come up with after all these years. The changes in gameplay are marginal so far, while large enough that everybody needs to buy new books to keep on playing.

Not many folks are going to fall for this, are they?

[Psyren]

Still a strength check for the jump, though (except for the Thief), which is odd. I wonder how skills and ability relations will be (maybe you can use STR for intimidate now?). I'd like for "Dex to jump skill checks" to be applied to each of the "experts", but I do like the thief movement abilities overall. But yeah, as an action it's odd.

True, it's still Strength - but with Expertise Acrobatics even an 8 Str Rogue will be able to clear quite a distance, on par with a 20 Str Fighter at high levels. And that's before Reliable Talent, never mind Stroke of Luck.

[Jervis]

All right, here's my thoughts. They're LONG so, spoiler tags!


These classes now get subclass features at the same levels (3/6/10/14/18; classes with L20 capstones now get them at 18th level)
Spellcasting: The way preparing spells is worded, you MUST prepare the number of spells for the spell slots you have. So as a 5th level bard, say, I cannot prepare 9 1st level spells and no 2nd or 3rd level spells. As written, I have to prepare 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 2 3rd level spells. This is really dumb.
Ability Modifiers: I ***HATE*** the removal of ability modifiers from class features. Other than skill checks and save DCs, there is literally zero incentive to pump up the so called “primary ability”. I know checks and save DCs are important. But they don’t FEEL the same as a class feature that uses the ability modifier.
Starting equipment is still an (apparently) random number of gold pieces, or take the listed items. Doesn’t really mesh with their stated goal for backgrounds, but whatever.
Where’s the out of combat utility? The Rangery things that make a Ranger ranger better? That make a rogue do rogue **** better? Make a bard more bardy?


Bardinc Inspiration: overall I’m good with this, though it does feel a little wonky.
Prepared Spells: See my notes on spellcasting in General. Otherwise, I’m ok with this. The change to Arcane spell list is a bit jarring, but nothing I can’t get used to.
JoAT: I really hate how, as written, it does not apply to initiative or counterspell. It occurs to me that this may have been intentional.
LORE: Cunning Inspiration: actually pretty cool. It’s basically advantage on the BI die.
LORE: Imp Cutting Words: Oh wait. Ok. We have to wait until halfway through the game to have an incentive to increase our **PRIMARY ABILITY**. (I know ability checks and save DCs; see above in General)


Prepared Spells: same as General and Bard
Favored Enemy: freakin sweet. Not as thematic, to be sure, but infinitely more useful.
Fighting Style: based on that second paragraph, I have a feeling this IS in fact the Warrior signature feature, but Rangers get it as well.
Roving/Tireless/Nature’s Veil/Foe Slayer: all awesome. Especially Tireless with the new Exhausted condition (see below).
HUNTER: Multiattack: Hmm! Now this sets an interesting precedent. Being able to downcast spells. I’m not opposed to it, but would need to see it in play to really be sure.


Sneak Attack: definitely don’t like removal of OA sneak attacks. Otherwise, I like it.
Subtle Strikes: Essentially, permanent flanking. Got it. Seems OP considering the Sneak Attack wording, but it’s simple enough to get advantage as-is that it’s probably not too big a deal.
THIEF: Use Magic Device: four attuned items is neat, as is using charged items without burning a charge. Otherwise, I’ve not really played a Thief, so I can’t really say.


Level Requirements: not a fan. I get it. It makes sense. Still not a fan.
Everything is a half-feat now. Kinda removes the demand for a full ASI, but also makes starting or bumping to an odd number ability less of an issue.
Dual Wielder: they removed the AC bonus. Sad face. And the “treat non-light as light” thing will largely go unused. I’ve almost never seen anyone give a crap about this anyway.
Durable: Holy Crap this is powerful. Especially combined with Epic Boon of Recovery (assuming you hit 20th level). Speaking of….
Epic Boons: Meh. They’re there. But they don’t really add anything flavorful to the class/subclass to make me care. I like (some) of the capstones because they take the (sub)class and say, “here. You stuck it out. Now you’re the most baddest ass badass <class> to ever walk the land!”.
Fighting Style: Protection: It’s both a nerf and a buff. Nerf b/c it’s no longer disadvantage. Buff because it now stacks with DA if it can be imposed in some other way.
Great Weapon Master: BOOOORRING! Why remove the -5/+10 part? That was a fun and meaningful choice. Now it’s not even a decision. You just do it if you haven’t yet. Boring!
Sharpshooter: See GWM. Same thing. Though I suppose it’s nice to never have DA on a ranged weapon attack.
Speedster: It’s Mobile, but worse. Not provoking OAs was one of the most awesome reasons to take Mobile. Now it’s lackluster, at best.
Spell Sniper: Sharpshooter, for spells. Meh.


What the **** is wrong with an ability check just being an ability check?!? We don’t need more actions! At best, just make a table of “suggested checks for each ability” or some such thing.
Barkskin: Bonus action is better. THP is more useful but significantly less thematic. Not a fan, even if it is better.
Exhausted [Condition]: Much better!! Now berserker barbarians might actually get to use Frenzy (assuming they still have it when that UA comes out)
Guidance: WORSE! The reaction part is fine. The once per long rest part is most definitely NOT!
Heroic Inspiration: Halflings get screwed. It only applies to the d20 “used for the test’s total, not a d20 that was rerolled or discarded”. Bummer.
Influence [Action]: See my first point. But let me reiterate. This is ****ing stupid. We don’t need more actions. This stuff already works fine as-is. This is changing it for the sake of changing it with no real meaning or purpose.
Magic [Action]: See above. Do I need to repeat myself again?
Search/Study [Action]: here we go again…

Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic for 5.5e, though there's still a LOT of work to be done.

I’m actually a fan of the preparation rules. Being able to prepare a ton of low level spells gives some nice utility but for the most part it’s a trap option. You had people going “Woah, guys i’m gonna prepare all 1st level spells and upcast them because i’m unique and quirky, this is my personality now!” in the same vein as people who didn’t take EB and AB on a warlock. In both cases it’s better to have some rules here. Also with some spell levels like 3rds it can actually force a choice where you can’t forgo preparing higher level spells to make more or only preparing one or two 1st level spells and getting all high level stuff.

[Oramac]

We can't say this for sure either. Take the Priest group - in the original PHB, all three of these classes got their subclass at different levels (Cleric 1, Druid 2, Paladin 3). They might change that, or it might be the same as it was. (Though I suppose Paladins swearing an Oath at 1st level and Druids joining a Circle at 1st level wouldn't be a big deal either.)

All we do know for sure is that every subclass will grant 4 subclass features now.

Ok, I'm inferring. Consider this my prediction for the upcoming UAs. I predict all Class Groups will get all their subclass features at the same levels, with the possible exception of the initial subclass choice.

[OldTrees1]

Looking at the Tier 3-4 features to see if they are more level appropriate.
Ranger 11th (Tireless:1d8+prof temp hp/rest and -1 exhaustion/rest) is a bit bland
Ranger 13th (Nature's Veil & 4th level spells) and 15th (Feral Senses) seem nice
Ranger 17th (5th level spells) is unknown but based on previously it seems reasonable
Ranger 18th (Hunter's Mark deals 1d10) is terrible.
Ranger 14th (Subclass feature) is likely to be some unneeded niche combat feature

Rating: Ranger 13 / something else 7


Rogue 11th Reliable Talent (with Expertise) remains the Rogue's best feature as long as ability check math is broken
Rogue 13th Subtle Strikes is an unneeded combat feature. Basically a dead level.
Rogue 15th Slippery Mind now includes Cha saves. Still not a level's worth of features at T3.
Rogue 17th Elusive is an unneeded combat feature. Basically a dead level.
Rogue 18th Stroke of Luck can be valuable.
Rogue 14th (Subclass feature) might be decent going off the example of the Thief subclass getting an extra bonus action prof times per day

Rating Rogue 11 / something else 9


Conclusion: They barely improved T3 Ranger. Rogue still ends around 11th level.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

Happy the bard (and lore bard) keep all their good stuff. And they got rid of Countercharm as the cherry on top.

We must have read different UAs. The Bard definitely does not keep all their good stuff. I would say that going to prepared spells is actually a buff for the bard since often you will have more niche spells than the wizard et al, and magical secrets affecting entire classes of spells and being able to be changed out during spell preparation is also a very strong buff. Inspiration being a reaction is a small buff, as it it's utility as a healing resource.

But

Font of inspiration going to level 7 is very painful. A lot of games will never even go that far and you'll be stuck with 4 inspirations a day most likely. For Lore and Eloquence bards that might be OK, but for valor and especially swords, that's a disaster. Lore got hammered in the update, losing their strongest feature of early magical secrets for a worse cutting words progression, which is especially egregious after Silvery Barbs made it so basically any spell caster could use cutting words, and with the new changes, can use the effect more often than a bard himself. It seems like they are trying to push the bard hard into the healing direction with the changes to inspiration and songs of restoration, which seems odd to me. Most people don't play bards to be a healer. Your skills are now worse than a rogues by a fair margin, and your magical versatility does not come online even partially until most campaigns have already ended. You have no improved combat ability over an arcane caster besides light armor, which isn't really better than mage armor, when all the other experts have significant combat capability. And the best magical secrets picks are being incorporated into class features instead of spells. Which is fair to those classes, but a direct nerf to the bard.

For changes-- IDK. What made the bard class OP in 5e IMO was mostly multi-classing and magical secrets picks that should have been class features. This swings the pendulum in a weird direction. The Musician feat seems like it should just be a bard class feature, and maybe inspiring leader as well (although don't call it that, Bard's aren't really party leaders). With inspiration being a much more limited resource and not more powerful but with more demands on it, I would recommend giving Bards something to make them feel like true all-rounders instead of weirdly limited full casters. Maybe make them half casters that know all spell schools but have medium armor and multiattack?

[Damon_Tor]

Jump being an Action is absolute madness. What in the world are they thinking?

I'm reasonably certain they are deliberately including changes they know will be unpopular with every UA. That way they can roll those changes back later and create the impression that they're listening to feedback, and it help their less objectionable (but still annoying) changes go under the radar. It's New Coke. It's bad on purpose.

[Psyren]

Ranger 18th (Hunter's Mark deals 1d10) is terrible.

It's actually way better than the old capstone. The old one was Wis mod to damage once per turn at 20th level (i.e. +5 DPR), while this is +1d10 (avg 5.5) to damage on each attack. That includes TWF, reaction and bonus action attacks.

[Jervis]

Maybe make them half casters that know all spell schools but have medium armor and multiattack?

Halfcasters focused on casting have never and will never be a good idea. Extra attack is a bard subclass feature for a good half of their subclasses and assuming that doesn’t change I fail to see how making it part of a base class is a good idea. The melee focused colleges have no reason to exist then and casting focused ones suck hard. Like I say every time people bring this up, burning hands will never be as good as fireball, hold person will never be as good as hypnotic pattern. Making bard a half caster and changing nothing else makes them somehow worse than the mimetically bad 3.5 bard who at least had some decent exclusive spells, something 5e did away with entirely.

[Damon_Tor]

I think that's more of an issue with Thri-kreen being weird than with the dual-wielding update.

There's a number of optimizations the new TWF can take advantage of. A sorcerer could cast a quickened booming blade and still get the extra attack off the attack action. Assuming the monk doesn't change significantly they could stack TWF and martial arts/flurry.

[OldTrees1]

I'm reasonably certain they are deliberately including changes they know will be unpopular with every UA. That way they can roll those changes back later and create the impression that they're listening to feedback, and it help their less objectionable (but still annoying) changes go under the radar. It's New Coke. It's bad on purpose.

You suspect they already know what they want 1D&D to look like but are creating fake mistakes to simulate fake listening? Plausible.

[Jervis]

There's a number of optimizations the new TWF can take advantage of. A sorcerer could cast a quickened booming blade and still get the extra attack off the attack action. Assuming the monk doesn't change significantly they could stack TWF and martial arts/flurry.

Big if true. I’m not sure all of that will survive the rewrites before release and BB might get nerfed as well but if that is true it would make gishes much more interesting

[Jervis]

You suspect they already know what they want 1D&D to look like but are creating fake mistakes to simulate fake listening? Plausible.

IIRC wasn’t there some drama with supposedly fake votes in 5e changing the rules for martial characters to something Crawford said he liked more than what the fans wanted?

[OldTrees1]

It's actually way better than the old capstone. The old one was Wis mod to damage once per turn at 20th level (i.e. +5 DPR), while this is +1d10 (avg 5.5) to damage on each attack. That includes TWF, reaction and bonus action attacks.

So? Sand and gravel are both bad breakfasts.

No, Ranger 13 slightly improved. That increased my rating from Ranger 11 (5E) to Ranger 13 (5.5E). After that there are too many dead levels.

[Psyren]

So? Sand and gravel are both bad breakfasts.

Triggering on each attack without concentration is roughly like having your Dex bumped to 30. I think that's reasonable for an 18th level feature.

[deadman1204]

I feel weird to be defending this, but I don't see this as "making everything super-simple and bland." I am cautiously optimistic based on this, as there's a lot of clean-up of what were scattered random rules into more concise packages, the feats being acknowledged as just something people use is nice, and making ASI into a repeatable feat is a non-change that still feels a little cleaner.


They are cutting subclasses by more than half. How is that not cutting out more choice and content and making everything more bland/samey?

[Psyren]

They are cutting subclasses by more than half. How is that not cutting out more choice and content and making everything more bland/samey?

The current Player's Handbook has 40 subclasses in it, not 100+.

[Oramac]

One thing that sorta irks me about the Class Groups is how they intend to handle new classes down the road. Artificer is easy enough. It pretty easily fits into the Expert Group. But what about something like a Psion? They aren't Arcane (and I know many people who will cry foul if you call a psion arcane), but they don't really fit any other Group either. Expert would probably be the most likely, but even then it's more of a last resort than an actual fit.

I can see this issue cropping up with tons of new content.

[Nidgit]

It's actually way better than the old capstone. The old one was Wis mod to damage once per turn at 20th level (i.e. +5 DPR), while this is +1d10 (avg 5.5) to damage on each attack. That includes TWF, reaction and bonus action attacks.
It's actually not. The real strength of the old Foe Slayer wasn't +Wis to damage, it was +Wis to hit. If you were already hitting all your attacks, it instead got converted into bonus damage.

It's also unfair to consider this new Foe Slayer as adding 1d10 new damage to each attack. It's improving 1d6 bonus damage to 1d10 bonus damage per hit, for an average of +2 damage per hit. So pretty garbage when compared to, for instance, a Barbarian.

[Dr.Samurai]

With changes to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master power attack options (removed) and Sneak Attack damage on Reactions (removed), were these options overpowered previously? Like, will this bring the game to a more balanced place?

Because my issue with the former was just the fact that it funneled everyone into certain weapons if they wanted to deal a lot of damage. I didn't have an issue with SA on reactions.

[Hael]

I know its UA and not official print quality yet, but the quality of the lore and prose leaves something to be desired.

“You invoke spirits of nature to magically hide yourself from view. “

“You stalk prey in the wilds and elsewhere, using your abilities as a Hunter to protect nature and people everywhere from forces that would destroy them”

Its just so uninspiring. Its giving me shades of the 4e writing (and as much as people say otherwise, I think the primary reason 4e failed was how it was written to read like a video game manual)

[OldTrees1]

Triggering on each attack without concentration is roughly like having your Dex bumped to 30. I think that's reasonable for an 18th level feature.

1) You do realize the feature alters the 1d6 from Hunter's Mark to be the 1d10? That is ~+2 damage, not +5.5
2) You do realize Dex does more than damage? Especially out of combat where Ranger could be improved
3) You do realize it relies on Hunter's Mark which means you lose a bonus action attack for some bonus damage against a single target. There will be combats where not casting Hunter's Mark was the better tactic.

So no, it is not like bumping your Dex to 30 and it is not a reasonable 18th level feature

[KorvinStarmast]

Overall, I think the idea is that each individual player will do what they've already been doing. Pick em and leave em, or change em all the time. So, effectively, it won't really change much in actual gameplay. Yes. The wizard in my brother's game has changed prepared spells once. We are mid way through tenth level at this point.

Have they? Bard looks great from where I'm sitting. Meh. I played a lore bard from 1-20, it looks changed, but great? Lost four magical secrets out of 8: that's not 'great' IMO. (and lost 2 out of six for other bards).

Just going to say, I find putting this info (the context and developer thinking) in videos is (although a modern thing) to be utterly user hostile. Concur. It's lazy.

They made it easier to give people inspiration by making it a reaction.
They gave a new default option with the healing.
It still fuels subclasses and is meant to be backwards compatible. I noticed that you can stack Cunning Inspiration with Peerless skill. :smallwink: I think that's a net +3 on average when BI is a d12; need to see the numbers run, maybe an anydice thing.

And a 19th level X taking a dip into it with a 13 Cha and getting a full 6 Inspirations, is utterly bizarre. If you wait that long to that one level of bard dip, I don't think that's a super-great replacement for a Epic Boon Feat (although some of them are not impressive).

Why do they bother changing/nerfing articles? I feel like a lot of this could have been left alone to better effect. Like does PAM need to preclude spears? It's almost like they're making a lot of intentionally bad changes so they could look better when they're reverted or something. No, but I think they wanted to eliminate the PAM while also using a shield thing, so quarter staffs and spears both got deleted.

Todd: Wow. You made me laugh. :)

Sarcasm aside, it was like watching molasses.
It was like watching some of Mearles early youtube videos. Lots of talking, not much meat on the bone.

"Influence" checks are now spelled out in a formalized way in the glossary. Interesting times! That's just them putting what's in the DMG into the PHB, (around page 245 or so) more or less.

Shatter is transmutation now, so bards still have it. Thunderwave also is now transmutation... A few spells have had their school changed Yes. For example, healing word et al are now abjuration, bard domain spells, and the bard can only use them due to a feature since they are not: Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, or Transmutation. (Checks to see if Simulacrum is still illusion ... yes it is ... I can sing duets :smallbiggrin: with myself).

There's a separate class feature at level 2 which is "bards get these restoration spells on their spells list, always prepared, not counting against spells prepared." Makes spell selection less of a chore. :smallsmile:

I think the motivation behind a lot of the prepared spell changes is to reduce the level up "analysis paralysis" for spellcasting classes. And I had a lot of that problem with my bard: could not make up my freaking mind.

But the tactical part of the game is already the only one that works properly. Any downgrade to it is more meaningful than changes to parts of the game that barely work as is. I don't get why the Jump Action isn't a sub set of movement. I will note that in the feedback.

Comment on Ranger:
1. Nature's veil should not cost a spell slot to go inviso for maybe 1 turn. That's a 13th level feature. Needs a scrub.
2. Love that Hunters Mark is not concentration now.

Comment on Guidance:
Love that Guidance is reaction, not concentration, now. That's almost how it's used now by careless players (like the ones I DM for ... Oh, wait, did you cast guidance????)

[Oramac]

With changes to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master power attack options (removed) and Sneak Attack damage on Reactions (removed), were these options overpowered previously? Like, will this bring the game to a more balanced place?

No. If anything, it'll be more imbalanced. SA on reaction is fine and the power attack options were a fun and meaningful choice. As written, they're just boring.

[Psyren]

It's actually not. The real strength of the old Foe Slayer wasn't +Wis to damage, it was +Wis to hit. If you were already hitting all your attacks, it instead got converted into bonus damage.

It was still only one hit. +5 to one hit is nice, but it's ultimately much less DPR than +5.5 damage to 3-5 hits. And that's without considering that some ranger builds don't pump Wis anyway, in those cases you're still getting the full damage boost here.



It's also unfair to consider this new Foe Slayer as adding 1d10 new damage to each attack. It's improving 1d6 bonus damage to 1d10 bonus damage per hit, for an average of +2 damage per hit. So pretty garbage when compared to, for instance, a Barbarian.

Barbarian's is certainly nice but since it only applies to strength, is much less useful in practice (melee or thrown.) The Ranger can switch-hit much more effectively with the new HM, and moreover can use it while concentrating on something else, which neither the old ranger nor the barbarian can.

[KorvinStarmast]

And now for some hate:
What, rogues don't get to SA on reactions? Grrrrrrrrrrrr. :smallfurious:

[Keravath]

Some comments on the published UA. Major issues marked in red.

I haven't read the rest of the thread so if I repeat things I apologize.

1) Invisible condition.
"Unseeable. You can’t be seen, so you aren’t affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying also can’t be seen.
Surprise. If you are Invisible when you roll initiative, you have Advantage on the roll.
Attacks Affected. Attack Rolls against you have Disadvantage, and your Attack Rolls have Advantage."

I would have though they would have fixed this but as written invisible still provides the attack benefits even if the invisible creature can be seen. Makes no sense to me.

"BLINDSIGHT
If you have Blindsight, you can effectively see within a specific range without relying on physical sight. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind Total Cover, even if you’re Blinded or in Darkness. Moreover, you can effectively see a Hidden or an Invisible creature in that range."

So the creature with blindsight can see the invisible creature but the invisible creature still gets advantage on initiative rolls and the creature with blindsight still has disadvantage to hit them. All they need to do is make the benefits of invisible contingent on not being seen by the specific creature. Invisible is not a blanket condition that either applies to everyone or not so they shouldn't.


2) Fixed DCs for tasks independent of other creatures present.

e.g. Hide Action

"HIDE [ACTION]
With the Hide Action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must make a DC 15 Dexterity Check (Stealth) while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)."

You can have a Dragon, monster or god with a passive perception of 20 or 30 and the character will STILL be able to hide from this creature forcing them to make a Wisdom Check (Perception) to find the creature again.

In additon, with HIDE, "behind Three-Quarters Cover" and "you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight". If you are behind 3/4 cover then you are NOT out of the enemy's line of sight - so you can't hide - so why include 3/4 cover? Needs clarification.

e.g. Actor Feat
"Mimicry. You can mimic the sounds of other creatures, including speech. To mimic a sound or a way of speaking, you must listen to it for at least 1 minute. Any time thereafter, you can make a DC 15 Charisma Check (Performance) to perform the mimicry; on a success, you perform it convincingly for up to 1 hour."

How convincing the imitation is, is independent of the creature listening. You can fool the queen that you sound like the king as easily as a commoner on the street who has only seen the king from 500'.

e.g. Influence action. Again fixed DCs - a charisma character with expertise in peruasion can convince anyone of anything - unless the DM decides they can't be convinced. The DC20 for hostile creatures will still get them to help you as long as their is limited effort and no risk.


3) These rules work with the existing rules so critical hits still occur on a 20 as far as I can tell. They've added gaining inspiration on a 1 but I haven't seen crits being removed.

Rogue level 18:
"18 TH LEVEL: STROKE OF LUCK
You have an uncanny knack for succeeding when you need to. If you fail a d20 Test, you can turn the roll into a 20. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a Short Rest or a Long Rest."

This ability turns the ROLL into a 20 which is a critical hit for Attack tests - the ability applies to all d20 tests not just ability checks.
Once/short rest the 18th level rogue can execute a critical hit. It is a capstone feature but seems a bit strong.

4) Crossbow expert only gives you one shot before you have to drop the crossbow.

"Ignore Loading. You ignore the Loading property of crossbows.
Dual Wielding. When you make the extra attack of the Light weapon property, you can add your Ability Modifier to the damage of the extra attack if that attack is with a crossbow that has the Light property."

The crossbow with the light property presumably also has the ammunition property (unless they are getting rid of it). "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon". This means that you can fire a light crossbow you are holding in your other hand but since you don't have a free hand (both hands have light weapons) you can't reload it. Making it effectively useless as more than just a curiosity.

The Light property also says that the additional attack must be made with a different weapon.

5) Grappling and Slowed. (Loophole?)

Grapple:"the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving"
Slowed:
"Attacks Affected. Attack Rolls against you have Advantage.
Dexterity Saves Affected. You have Disadvantage on Dexterity Saving Throws."

So if you grapple and try to drag your target around then for some part of that turn Attack Rolls against the grappler have advantage and they have disadvantage on dex saves.

So if you are grappled then wait for the grappler to move you to attack.

6) Gem from Difficult terrain.

"Liquid that’s between shin- and waist-deep (any deeper and you need to Swim)"

If the water is over waist deep you have to swim. ???

7) Guidance spell

"Once a creature rolls the die for this Spell, that creature can’t benefit from the Spell again until the creature finishes a Long Rest."

Guidance is a reaction usable on a creature ONCE / long rest. Maybe they don't want folks to spam Guidance - but parties usually have specialists which means that the same character tends to make most of the checks of certain kinds - persuasion, investigation, perception - this limits the effect so much that it isn't clear why anyone would bother with the guidance cantrip. Why would a caster bother learning it if they can only use on themselves once/day. The point of cantrips is repeatable magic that can be done frequently. This can't. I've also never found the guidance cantrip to be broken in use since casting in a long of situations is limited by visibility and the fact the caster gets noticed.



Interesting changes:

8) Extra attack with off-hand Light weapon does not use a bonus action. It is just an extra attack. This may change the balance between two-handed weapons/sword and board and dual wielding. Might be worth it.

9) PAM now requires Heavy and Reach weapons - no more spear or quarterstaff.

10) Sharpshooter no longer has the -5/+10 option. Instead has firing in melee.

11) GWM loses -5/+10 and instead adds +proficiency damage once/turn.

12) Ritual caster only gives 2 x 1st level rituals plus the ability to cast ONE ritual using its normal casting time without using a spell slot 1/long rest.

13) Shield master. The bash is now an explicit rider on scoring a hit with an Attack roll.

14) Keen Mind and Observant. One skill with proficiency or if you have it expertise + perform Study/Search action as a bonus action. Honestly not much there. It isn't that common to study/search during initiative which is the only time when the bonus action ability will matter.

15) Long rest restores all hit points, hit point maximum, hit dice and ability scores. Long rests in 5e are already easy mode and they are getting even easier. Removes one of the uses of Greater Restoration.

16) Changed up multiple move speeds.

"For example, if you have a Speed and a Climb Speed, you can use one of those speeds when you Move, not both during the same Move. If you take more than one Move on a turn and have more than one speed, each Move can use the same speed or a different one."

Have to choose which move speed you are using during a move. I wonder if moving on land with your swim speed counts as difficult terrain? :)
This idea doesn't seem like that great an alternative to the current rules but does get around problems caused by trying to use different move speeds in the same movement - you just can't.

However, with a swim speed of 30', if you are 5' from the edge of a lake - you can only move the 5' to the lake and then move 10' into the lake as difficult terrain ... on the other hand, if you are standing on the bank, you can move 30' out into the water. I can see lots of players say "Wut?"


17) Spells prepared is now exactly the same as spell slots. Including matching the level. A level 5 spell caster will have 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells and 2 3rd level spells prepared. There is no bonus to spells prepared for casting stat. This is generally fewer prepared spells than caster level + casting stat at both low and high level. In addition, high level casters will have no flexibility since they will typically only have one spell choice prepared for the higher level spells. This could be intended as a nerf to high level spell casters so that they aren't quite as flexible.

[Psyren]

And now for some hate:
What, rogues don't get to SA on reactions? Grrrrrrrrrrrr. :smallfurious:

I'm a little sad about that too, though I'm wondering if Subtle Strikes might help make up the DPR difference overall. At the very least this settles the "save your Reaction for Uncanny Dodge" argument...


Meh. I played a lore bard from 1-20, it looks changed, but great? Lost four magical secrets out of 8: that's not 'great' IMO. (and lost 2 out of six for other bards).

That's after the ton of new spells they got natively though, like Haste and Fly. In addition, the Magical Secrets they get can now be changed each day for other spells from that list. So I definitely still think they came out ahead overall.

[Segev]

Currently:

Move - Can be a jump, up to your speed
Action - Can Dash --> can then jump up to your speed

1D&D:

Move - Cannot be a jump
Action - Can jump, up to your speed

What is the improvement here? I'm not seeing it. (This doesn't even touch the fact that by Strength 20 I can jump 4 squares without a check, whereas now I'd have to roll an Athletics check of 20 to do that, the equivalent of a Hard DC lol, what a joke.) One option would be to let characters use their Strength score in place of a roll if they want.

Why is this a problem though? I did this in our Avernus game several times. If you don't clear the difficult terrain it's an Acrobatics check to stop from falling Prone, which is a risk. If you do clear it, awesome, you're a strong guy that can jump over stuff.

Strength characters need better options, not action denial.I think you're trying to argue with me by agreeing with me. :smallconfused:

I didn't say it was great. And what I said wasn't a problem was people jumping repeatedly on their turns.

I will quibble to point out that, under current 5e rules, you can jump further than your movement speed; you just have jumping distance count against movement speed, so you might finish a jump on your next turn.

This is actually one of my biggest problems with the new rules, aside from the fact that it stops you from jumping across a gap to attack somebody: if a gap is more than your speed across, it doesn't matter how good a roll you make; you can't jump it.


I’m actually a fan of the preparation rules. Being able to prepare a ton of low level spells gives some nice utility but for the most part it’s a trap option. You had people going “Woah, guys i’m gonna prepare all 1st level spells and upcast them because i’m unique and quirky, this is my personality now!” in the same vein as people who didn’t take EB and AB on a warlock. In both cases it’s better to have some rules here. Also with some spell levels like 3rds it can actually force a choice where you can’t forgo preparing higher level spells to make more or only preparing one or two 1st level spells and getting all high level stuff.
My big problem with it is that you can't prepare 2-3 8th or 9th level spells so that you have some options "in the moment" when adventuring anymore. Sure, you can't actually cast more than one of them today, but having the option to choose between true polymorph and time stop when you're in the midst of the moment of need is nice. Having to pick which one you WILL use today is going back hard to 3e's prepared casting. Which I also didn't have a problem with, but is an awkward shift for 5e, to my mind.

[Damon_Tor]

You suspect they already know what they want 1D&D to look like but are creating fake mistakes to simulate fake listening? Plausible.

I have a background in villainy sales and marketing. It left me with deep cynicism about this sort of thing.

[Nidgit]

It was still only one hit. +5 to one hit is nice, but it's ultimately much less DPR than +5.5 damage to 3-5 hits. And that's without considering that some ranger builds don't pump Wis anyway, in those cases you're still getting the full damage boost here.

Barbarian's is certainly nice but since it only applies to strength, is much less useful in practice (melee or thrown.) The Ranger can switch-hit much more effectively with the new HM, and moreover can use it while concentrating on something else, which neither the old ranger nor the barbarian can.
That's a function of the Ranger's Hunter's Mark being much better, not the capstone Foe Slayer. Rangers have basically no reason to not cast Hunter's Mark as soon as possible, though it still consumes a spell slot and a bonus action. But as far as what Foe Slayer specifically adds, it's not impressive. Getting some 4-8 extra damage per round as your class's crowning achievement stinks. 5e Barbarians get 4-8 damage per round plus better accuracy, 40 HP, and better ability checks and saving throws. There's no comparison.

[Pex]

My initial reaction.

Disappointed it's still a choice between ASI and Feat given ASI is a feat but compensated that each feat, other than 1st level feats, is a "half-feat". You still get an ability score increase of some kind. Having a 16 in your prime at 1st level, if you don't mind waiting until level 8 to get an 18 by the time you do you will have two feats of stuff enjoying one of them for four levels. If you use dice rolling for ability scores 17s look real good at 1st level. With the bonus ASIs at first level rolling a 16 is very nice. If you roll a 15 and 16 making them both 17s is very attractive compared to 18 16 with +2/+1. If you can't have (with bias) a 14 at CO in addition take Tough as your 1st level feat to compensate. You're golden.

That loud roar of cheers you hear are from DMs liking the changes to the big feats of Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Polearm Master. For Polearm Master not only did they get rid of the one-handed quarterstaff loophole, but it no longer synergizes with Sentinel. The attack you get with Polearm Master of an enemy approaching is not an Opportunity Attack, so Sentinel stopping speed is not invoked. Bow users still want Sharpshooter just to be able to fire in melee.

It looks like they're keeping Arcane Casters can cast spells in armor if proficient. Expect wizards to take Lightly Armored as their 1st level feat.

Disappointed, naturally, it appears they're keeping DM Make It Up for skill DCs, but they have provided specific advice that it's not all DM make it up. There is a defined DC for jumping. The influencing NPC tables are now prominently seen for people to know instead of hiding away at the back of DMG people don't even know it's there. I appreciate the mention it's for NPCs only, not PCs. It's still not clear a PC can climb/swim something just because he wants to, but it's hinted. I do not like having the default DC of stuff be 15. That's too high for the non-Experts, but at least it's something of a guidance for a DM when he can't think at the moment of a PC wants to do something. It's a lot better than DC 20 to climb a tree.

I'm meh on the classes. There are things I like and didn't like, but I don't have a horse in this race. Bard, Ranger, and Rogue are my least favorite classes as a matter of personal taste. I don't play them (one exception of multiclass barbarian/rogue), so I don't have the emotional investment. I expect more emotional reaction when the other classes are reviewed. I may or may not respond to other people's opinions on them when I read if it inspires a reaction.

[Psyren]

That's a function of the Ranger's Hunter's Mark being much better, not the capstone Foe Slayer. Rangers have basically no reason to not cast Hunter's Mark as soon as possible, though it still consumes a spell slot and a bonus action. But as far as what Foe Slayer specifically adds, it's not impressive. Getting some 4-8 extra damage per round as your class's crowning achievement stinks. 5e Barbarians get 4-8 damage per round plus better accuracy, 40 HP, and better ability checks and saving throws. There's no comparison.

There's indeed no comparison to 8-10 more DPR all day long while still having concentration free for other things. (Things like, say, Swift Quiver.)



It looks like they're keeping Arcane Casters can cast spells in armor if proficient. Expect wizards to take Lightly Armored as their 1st level feat.

I agree that Lightly Armored is a bit too good. There's no need for it to grant shields.

[Waterdeep Merch]

There's a lot to unpack here, but one of the biggest I'm seeing is that I struggle to see a purpose to non-polearm two-handed weapons. GWM was oft-maligned for hitting well beyond expected damage thresholds, sure, but as it stands, THF now barely eeks out ahead of Dueling, except Dueling also gets a shield for much better AC (and possibly an insane spike in AC if any magic shields are around). TWF is better, but not markedly so. It's bad action economy was a secondary sin to just not doing very much.

Two-Hander with Great Weapon Fighting= 2d6 with rerollable 1's and 2's for an expected 8.33 average.
Two-Weapons with Two-Weapon Fighting= 2d6 with anywhere from +0 to +5, anywhere from 7 to 12 average.
Sword n' Board with Dueling= 1d8+2 for an expected 6.5 average.

At low levels and expecting a 16 in the relevant ability score, these are 11.33, 13, and 9.5. This isn't entirely a new problem, but I really don't feel like these numbers should be as close as they are. 3.5 average damage per round in exchange for 2 AC? And not even 2 extra points of damage for the two-hander. And TWF's numbers are a little suspect, because this doesn't include to-hit calcs: they're less likely to fail to deal damage, and a little more likely to not hit their maximums. Depends on the target and luck.

Once Extra Attack kicks in we're at something like 24.33 (if GWM has been taken and an 18 hasn't been reached, 26.33 if it has), 17 (if Dual Wielder has been taken and an 18 hasn't been reached, 20 if it has), and 19 (if the duelist decided they had better things to do than improve their Str/Dex, 21 if they didn't). A Fighter is statistically better giving up TWF, retraining for Dueling and switching to a sword and board at level 5, there is nearly zero advantage in maintaining that style. The difference is approximately 5.33 damage.


I'm feeling like my real problem is with Dueling being too good, Great Weapon Fighting being too uninspired (and too fiddly for what little extra utility it brings), and TWF still scaling like crap. Without GWM's -5/+10 it's just a lot more pronounced.

[Oramac]

That loud roar of cheers you hear are from DMs liking the changes to the big feats of Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Polearm Master.

I'm a DM and I hate those changes for two reasons: first, they removed choice. Especially for GWM, it's now just "I add damage" instead of "I decide to risk my attack missing to add A LOT of damage". Second, as I tell my players all the time, anything they can do, the monsters can also do. They flip the hell out when they have to fight the Captain of the [insert country's royal guard] and he uses GWM against them.


Disappointed, naturally, it appears they're keeping DM Make It Up for skill DCs, but they have provided specific advice that it's not all DM make it up.

Going to disagree again. I prefer "DM make it up" skill checks. I don't mind having a table to provide guidance, but this crap of saying "here's the DC for all Jump Actions" is just dumb. Don't even get me started on the Jump Action itself.

[gloryblaze]

There's indeed no comparison to 8-10 more DPR all day long while still having concentration free for other things. (Things like, say, Swift Quiver.)


Swift quiver is still gonna be a hard sell, since hunter's mark is a bonus action and swift quiver is itself a bonus action. Meaning that you're going Round 1 HM + 2 HM attacks, Round 2 SQ + 2 HM attacks, Round 3(!) 4 HM attacks. A lot of combats are literally over by Round 3, and more are effectively over (boss dead, on minion clean-up).

I really do like that I can now use ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, and lightning arrow more freely. I love those spells but always struggled to justify taking them.

[OldTrees1]

5e Barbarians get 4-8 damage per round plus better accuracy, 40 HP, and better ability checks and saving throws. There's no comparison.


There's indeed no comparison to 8-10 more DPR all day long while still having concentration free for other things. (Things like, say, Swift Quiver.)

Psyren's questionable math aside, there really is no comparison. Barbarian's +4 Str +4 Con is a much better trait. Even with Psyren's original bad math of +5.5 per 5 attacks (so +28 DPR) I would still find it a terrible feature.

How much did Foe Slayer pay you Psyren?

[Dr.Samurai]

I think you're trying to argue with me by agreeing with me. :smallconfused:
Is it working?? :smalltongue:

I didn't say it was great. And what I said wasn't a problem was people jumping repeatedly on their turns.
You said you agree with one part, which made me think that the rest of what followed was endorsement by way of explanation. Sorry for the confusion!

I will quibble to point out that, under current 5e rules, you can jump further than your movement speed; you just have jumping distance count against movement speed, so you might finish a jump on your next turn.
No one I play with runs it this way.

This is actually one of my biggest problems with the new rules, aside from the fact that it stops you from jumping across a gap to attack somebody: if a gap is more than your speed across, it doesn't matter how good a roll you make; you can't jump it.
I feel like hardly anyone even uses Jumping now, so I'm not sure what is informing this choice, though Damon Tor is the second person to tell me it's all a ruse so maybe that's true...

@Pex: I agree keeping it a choice between ASI or feat sucks.

[Psyren]

Swift quiver is still gonna be a hard sell, since hunter's mark is a bonus action and swift quiver is itself a bonus action. Meaning that you're going Round 1 HM + 2 HM attacks, Round 2 SQ + 2 HM attacks, Round 3(!) 4 HM attacks. A lot of combats are literally over by Round 3, and more are effectively over (boss dead, on minion clean-up).


Psyren's questionable math aside, there really is no comparison. Barbarian's +4 Str +4 Con is a much better trait. Even with Psyren's original bad math of +5.5 per 5 attacks (so +28 DPR) I would still find it a terrible feature.

How much did Foe Slayer pay you Psyren?

Is Crossbow Expert no longer using your bonus action unique to my copy of the playtest? :smallconfused: And while we're at it, most 18th-level parties have Haste. Both of these are core; that's 4 HM attacks on Round 1.

[Pex]

I'm sort of on the same page as Dienekes -- some of these changes are cool (Rangers' non-concentration Hunter's Mark is rad), but this feels like things being shuffled around while my big gripes (not enough exploration/social across all classes, martials getting access to cooler moves in general) are probably too rock-the-boaty for 5.5. I'll hold final judgement until everything's said and done, but for now it's wild to see how things are moving in a slightly more Pathfindery direction, i.e. how "Influence" checks are now spelled out in a formalized way in the glossary. Interesting times!

Influence was always spelled out in a formalized way. DMG pg 245. The only difference is now they are prominent for everyone to see instead of hidden away you didn't know they exist.

[Amechra]

6) Gem from Difficult terrain.

"Liquid that’s between shin- and waist-deep (any deeper and you need to Swim)"

If the water is over waist deep you have to swim. ???

Hilariously, that's actually kinda what I settled on when I was noodling around with a "flooding" dungeon (which I ultimately scrapped because I'm bad at sticking with that kind of project).

Water basically came in six different levels (and the level would go up whenever the party rested or otherwise spent a bunch of time faffing around):

ANKLE: No penalties, but it's a steady reminder that the water is there. You might want to find somewhere to dry out your boots when you rest.
KNEE: Difficult terrain and you risk drowning if you go Prone unexpectedly. If you're Small, this counts as WAIST instead.
WAIST: As KNEE, except it's deep enough for you to swim in. If you're Small, this counts as HEAD instead.
CHEST: As WAIST, except you can only move by swimming. This is also the point where the penalties for fighting underwater come into play.
HEAD: As CHEST, except your head is underwater. If you want to talk (or breathe!) you have to tread water, which might be tricky to do when weighed down with loot (I never came up with good rules for treading water).
CEILING: As HEAD, except the water goes all the way up to the ceiling. As a result, you can't come up for air here.

On top of that, every monster would have limits on where they can go or hide based on water depth, and there'd be dungeon features that changed as the water level increased, for the better ("now you can just swim up to that balcony up there!") or for the worse ("you guys got to portrait gallery too late, and now the paintings are ruined").

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and there were things that players could do to slow down or redirect the water in order to make safe rooms or flood out monsters, because that kind of stuff is fun.

[stoutstien]

So many subtle changes this is going be a slog to break down. ..no more guidance spam..fixed hiding DC (at 15)...massive rule changes..so much..

[Ortho]

Overall, though, I'm liking this. I see a couple of Ardling sized what-the-hecks, but no Critical Hit sized ones, which is nice.


Regarding the spell school changes, some of them just don't make sense. How is Transmutation more appropriate for Blindness/Deafness than Illusion? The healing spells are Abjuration now, though I think they'd make more sense in Necromancy.

Are they cantrips or 0th-level spells? Make up your mind.

The changes to Guidance mean that there's a soft upper limit to the number of times per day you can cast it. Which is stupid, please don't do that.

Also, looking at the new Barkskin, don't have spells scale with proficiency bonus. That's what upcasting is for!!!


EDIT: I hereby propose a new unit of measurement, the milliCrit, to measure the stupidity of proposed changes.

[gloryblaze]

Is Crossbow Expert no longer using your bonus action unique to my copy of the playtest? :smallconfused: And while we're at it, most 18th-level parties have Haste. Both of these are core; that's 4 HM attacks on Round 1.

I don't actually disagree with you on new!Favored Enemy being fantastic, I mostly just think swift quiver is bollocks and needs a buff. new!XBX + new!Favored Enemy is indeed a dope combo, especially if you can get haste and/or a bonus action attack for 4-5 attacks per round. But swift quiver doesn't come online until round 3, so it sucks (even though it could stack with new!XBX, it just comes online too late).

Re: Foe Slayer, it's +(2*accuracy) damage per hit when you use hunter's mark. By level 18 you probably have enough spell slots to use HM all day, and new!FE buffs HM enough to make that a reasonable thing to want to do, so "+(2*accuracy) damage per hit all day long" is probably a reasonable enough assessment. Considering you can (presumably, there's not enough in the new UA to know if acquiring a 1/round ranged bonus action attack is possible for an 18th level ranger) build to make 4-5 attacks per round, that's 8-10 (*accuracy) DPR, sure.

However, the Barb capstone (assuming it's unchanged) is +2 damage per hit, and also +10% to accuracy and also doesn't require a BA on the first round of combat. So assuming a barbarian also decides to dual wield and receives haste and finds a bonus action attack somewhere, that's going to be strictly better (due to the accuracy buff and the extra attack on Round 1). Not to mention the additional AC, HP, and Con save bonuses from the +4 Con, the increase from 20 to 24 of the floor on Str checks from Indomitable Might, the bonus to Str saves, the bonus to carrying capacity, etc.


Additional things to mention:


Since the ranger XBX dual wielder is limited to hand crossbows and the barbarian dual wielder can use hand axes, the range difference is actually pretty similar (30 vs 20) unless the ranger invests in Sharpshooter. But if the ranger does invest in SS, then there will probably be a non-0 number of combats where the barbarian has to waste turn 1 dashing, which weighs in the ranger's favor.

Since high level barbarians rage every combat, essentially, there will be a very high number of combats where the barbarian rages as a bonus action on turn 1, giving up one of their capstone's DPR advantages over Foe Slayer (not consuming the turn 1 BA and therefore allowing for an attack).



Even with those 2 situational advantages to the ranger, I would def prefer the accuracy, HP, AC, and save buffs from the barbarian capstone. But they're decently comparable, IMO. Ranger is only a little weaker.

[OldTrees1]

Is Crossbow Expert no longer using your bonus action unique to my copy of the playtest? :smallconfused: And while we're at it, most 18th-level parties have Haste. Both of these are core; that's 4 HM attacks on Round 1.

Foe Slayer is still a terrible 18th level feature. It is strictly worse than +4 Dex so of course there is no comparision between Barbarian's +4 Str +4 Con vs Foe Slayers +2HM dmg. And it is worse than +4 Dex is so many ways. It only increases damage by ~2 per attack. Rangers already deal enough damage, in ascending order it lacks +2 atk, +2 initiative, +2 AC, +2 Dex saves, +2 Dex ability checks.

I said 1D&D Ranger 18th was terrible. You argued "5E Ranger 20th was worse, thus you are wrong and 1D&D Ranger 18th is great". I said both gravel and sand are bad breakfasts. I don't think you realized I am not going to buy the snake oil.

[Pex]

Don't forget this clause though:

"The DM may override this requirement and allow a particular Ability Check to be made as part of a Bonus Action or as no Action at all."

I know my GMs would still allow knowledge/recall to not need an action the way they do currently. I wouldn't mind if they had a suggested list of Action/BA/Nonaction skill use though.

I already allow it as a bonus action for generic information, usually enough to know not to use fire or some hint how to fight the creature. Using the action gets more detail, but players have been satisfied with just bonus action information.

[OldTrees1]

Regarding the spell school changes, some of them just don't make sense. How is Transmutation more appropriate for Blindness/Deafness than Illusion? The healing spells are Abjuration now, though I think they'd make more sense in Necromancy.

Wait what? Healing spells are now Abjuration? Are they doing a grand tour through the schools?
Abjuration 1D&D (Shoring up your defenses against death?)
Conjuration (Summon some positive energy)
Evocation (Create some positive energy)
Necromancy (Literally the school of life & death)

Edit: Quick someone figure out an excuse for healing to be divination. WotC will need the explanation for 6E.

[Psyren]

I said 1D&D Ranger 18th was terrible. You argued "5E Ranger 20th was worse, thus you are wrong and 1D&D Ranger 18th is great". I said both gravel and sand are bad breakfasts.

Actually I was making two separate statements - 5e ranger 20th is worse, AND 1DD Ranger 18 (+d10 on every hit all day concentration-free) is really good. There was no "thus."


I don't think you realized I am not going to buy the snake oil.

I'm just stating my opinion, regardless of whether you "buy" it or not. And to answer your earlier question, no, Big Foe Slayer didn't wire me an undisclosed amount. (Or did they? Shhh...)


I already allow it as a bonus action for generic information, usually enough to know not to use fire or some hint how to fight the creature. Using the action gets more detail, but players have been satisfied with just bonus action information.

I wouldn't mind it being a bonus action if there was a way to trade Actions for Bonus Actions. The Bonus Action is getting way too crowded already.

[Jervis]

Wait what? Healing spells are now Abjuration? Are they doing a grand tour through the schools?
Abjuration 1D&D (Shoring up your defenses against death?)
Conjuration (Summon some positive energy)
Evocation (Create some positive energy)
Necromancy (Literally the school of life & death)

Edit: Quick someone figure out an excuse for healing to be divination. WotC will need the explanation for 6E.

Divination (Using magic to determine if you will recover from a injury or not, spoiler you always will)

Enchantment (Hypnotizing you into not being hurt anymore)

Illusion (Creating a illusion of being healed so realistic that your body stops acting like it is)

Transmutation (Polymorph part of the body to remove injury)

TBH i’m curious why they haven’t been transmutation yet. That said i’m 90% sure changing the school for the healing spells is a inside joke at this point

[Pex]

I'm reasonably certain they are deliberately including changes they know will be unpopular with every UA. That way they can roll those changes back later and create the impression that they're listening to feedback, and it help their less objectionable (but still annoying) changes go under the radar. It's New Coke. It's bad on purpose.

How cynical but likely correct.

[KorvinStarmast]

Jump being an Action is absolute madness. What in the world are they thinking? Make sure you do the feedback.

At least Grapple DCs are based on Strength (from what we can see under Unarmed Strike). So far.


Strength characters need better options, not action denial.
Amen.

One thing that sorta irks me about the Class Groups is how they intend to handle new classes down the road. We don't need more classes. Game is already bloated.

I agree that Lightly Armored is a bit too good. There's no need for it to grant shields. Concur, remember this at feedback time.

I'm feeling like my real problem is with Dueling being too good, No. Not sure how much high level play you have done, but at Tiers 3 and four now it is underwhelming. Dueling, across the whole range of levels, is not Too Good. I wish folks would stop making balance arguments based on Tier 1.

The changes to Guidance mean that there's a soft upper limit to the number of times per day you can cast it. Which is stupid, please don't do that. You can thank all of the whiners who complained that Guidance was OP. WoTC listened.


Also, looking at the new Barkskin, don't have spells scale with proficiency bonus. That's what upcasting is for!!!
New Barkskin is no bargain.


EDIT: I hereby propose a new unit of measurement, the milliCrit, to measure the stupidity of proposed changes. *Giggle* :smallsmile:

[Pex]

My big problem with it is that you can't prepare 2-3 8th or 9th level spells so that you have some options "in the moment" when adventuring anymore. Sure, you can't actually cast more than one of them today, but having the option to choose between true polymorph and time stop when you're in the midst of the moment of need is nice. Having to pick which one you WILL use today is going back hard to 3e's prepared casting. Which I also didn't have a problem with, but is an awkward shift for 5e, to my mind.

Shh. It's a nerf to spellcasters and at high level too. Don't want that can of worms spilled.

[Dork_Forge]

Meh. I played a lore bard from 1-20, it looks changed, but great? Lost four magical secrets out of 8: that's not 'great' IMO. (and lost 2 out of six for other bards).

Based on that experience, how would you feel having a max of 3 BI dice per long rest until 7th level? And generally less dice until 14th+?


I noticed that you can stack Cunning Inspiration with Peerless skill. :smallwink: I think that's a net +3 on average when BI is a d12; need to see the numbers run, maybe an anydice thing.

That's a nice stacking, I like that.


If you wait that long to that one level of bard dip, I don't think that's a super-great replacement for a Epic Boon Feat (although some of them are not impressive).

It was an extreme example, but my point remains, one level of Bard and only a 13 Cha gives you the same number of uses at a time as a straight Bard, and just more period than a 6th level Bard or below.

That's weird and a bit of a kick in the teeth, which adds to my 'proficiency is a terrible way of doing anything but what it was originally intended' from my posts in other threads.


Actually I was making two separate statements - 5e ranger 20th is worse, AND 1DD Ranger 18 (+d10 on every hit all day concentration-free) is really good. There was no "thus."

Ranger 18 in this UA is not +d10, it's upgrading a d6 to a d10. It's the kind of incremental improvement you expect of core class abilities that use dice see: Bardic Inspiration, Martial Arts, Superiority Dice, Psi Dice etc.

It's a welcome increase for something being used since 1st level, but that alone, is an incredibly lackluster capstone, even when it's pulled back to 18th.

[Jervis]

I agree that Lightly Armored is a bit too good. There's no need for it to grant shields.

I disagree with lightly armored being too good. It’s competing with other feats of the same level. And while I agree that it’s good looking at the alternatives you have

Granting light armor: useless since the only classes that don’t get light armor have mage armor

Requiring light armor prof: This is why moderately armored was kinda useless, very few classes can benefit without dipping or taking a second feat

Giving medium and light armor: Medium armor is a slight upgrade over light since it doesn’t take much investment. Maybe worth a feat but it’s awkward because shield proficiency on its own isn’t really worth a feat

See the issue? Shield prof on its own isn’t really worth a feat and neither is light armor. Medium + shield is a good feat if you qualify but that more or less means that you need light armor prof as a pre-req which again means locking that behind a two feat chain or a level dip for casters. I just don’t think that’s worth the AC bump. So this is in a awkward position where the feat as a whole gives a lot but each of its pieces are too small to justify a feat on their own. I could maybe see an argument for light armor and martial weapons being a level 1 feat and medium armor and shields being a level 1 feat that requires light armor prof so you need to be a human to get them both.

Also yes martial weapon proficiency is over valued, I will die on this hill. The feat being a half feat like everything else makes it less painful but still.

[Pex]

I'm a DM and I hate those changes for two reasons: first, they removed choice. Especially for GWM, it's now just "I add damage" instead of "I decide to risk my attack missing to add A LOT of damage". Second, as I tell my players all the time, anything they can do, the monsters can also do. They flip the hell out when they have to fight the Captain of the [insert country's royal guard] and he uses GWM against them.

A DM can already do what he wants. There's no reason to be adversarial and threaten players with "What you can do NPCs can do" with stuff the rules say PCs are allowed to do.


Going to disagree again. I prefer "DM make it up" skill checks. I don't mind having a table to provide guidance, but this crap of saying "here's the DC for all Jump Actions" is just dumb. Don't even get me started on the Jump Action itself.

My thoughts on skill use is well documented and thoroughly studied.

Hooray for fixed DCs.

Jump should be part of normal movement, not an action, so that needs to be fixed. Barbarian: I jump over the pit and do nothing else. Wizard: I Misty Step over the pit and cast Firebolt. Yeah, no.

[Ortho]

My big problem with it is that you can't prepare 2-3 8th or 9th level spells so that you have some options "in the moment" when adventuring anymore.

Prepared spells is directly tied to spell slots?

That's just 4e. And not the part of 4e that people liked; it's unnecessarily limiting. Give us the option of preparing 20 1st-level spells if we want to, please.

Yeah, this needs to be reverted immediately. I'll give that one 850 milliCrits.

[Corran]

I'm going out on a very flimsy limb here, but I think I know why WOTC is looking in this direction. In short, it won't really change anything. NOW WAIT! Before you rip my head off, hear me out. People who don't give a damn about fine-tuning their spell lists or min/maxing their spells known will do what they've always done: pick spells and leave it at that. Then you have the people who like to min/max their spells and change them up for every fight. Those people can now do that too.

Overall, I think the idea is that each individual player will do what they've already been doing. Pick em and leave em, or change em all the time. So, effectively, it won't really change much in actual gameplay.

Again, I'm WAAAY out on the limb here, but this is what I got from it.
No no, I hear you. It sounds like the perfect solution, but I am willing to guess I am not the only one who is left in an awkward spot. Not making the best of your character may sound like a hyperbole, but when it's noticeable enough (eg when you are ignoring stuff you dont want to track down or you dont want to take the time to think about), well, it's not pleasant. That's why for example we have the champion instead of not having it and letting players who wanted a champion use a battlemaster and dont bother with the maneuvers. In this examples the maneuvers are replaced by some passive bouses that are easier to remember and far easier to use. Same with casters. I could play a prepared caster and not bother with changing spells while I could very well do that, but it would be a lot better if I can play the same caster without being able to change spell and get some other bonus in return (so essentially I dont spend the time and energy to think too often about my spell list, but doing so does not cost me anything because instead of that option I get something else in return).

[Pex]

Divination (Using magic to determine if you will recover from a injury or not, spoiler you always will)

Enchantment (Hypnotizing you into not being hurt anymore)

Illusion (Creating a illusion of being healed so realistic that your body stops acting like it is)

Transmutation (Polymorph part of the body to remove injury)

TBH i’m curious why they haven’t been transmutation yet. That said i’m 90% sure changing the school for the healing spells is a inside joke at this point

They probably changed it because of paladins. I suspect paladins like bards will only get access to particular schools of spells from the divine list. Since Conjuration will not be one of them and paladins should have healing spells they need to be removed from Conjuration. Paladins will have Abjuration so that's where it goes. Paladins might also have Evocation because of the smite spells, but evocation inspires damage not healing. Abjuration becomes the better option.

[tiornys]

Actually I was making two separate statements - 5e ranger 20th is worse, AND 1DD Ranger 18 (+d10 on every hit all day concentration-free) is really good. There was no "thus."
IF 1DD Ranger 18 was +d10 on every hit all day concentration-free, I would agree that's a decent capstone. However, as others have repeatedly pointed out, it's +d10 instead of +d6 on every hit all day concentration-free. The most important part of the benefit -- every hit all day concentration-free -- is something the Ranger has from level 1. The upgrade from d6 to d10 is a weak capstone.

[Pex]

I disagree with lightly armored being too good. It’s competing with other feats of the same level. And while I agree that it’s good looking at the alternatives you have

Granting light armor: useless since the only classes that don’t get light armor have mage armor

Requiring light armor prof: This is why moderately armored was kinda useless, very few classes can benefit without dipping or taking a second feat

Giving medium and light armor: Medium armor is a slight upgrade over light since it doesn’t take much investment. Maybe worth a feat but it’s awkward because shield proficiency on its own isn’t really worth a feat

See the issue? Shield prof on its own isn’t really worth a feat and neither is light armor. Medium + shield is a good feat if you qualify but that more or less means that you need light armor prof as a pre-req which again means locking that behind a two feat chain or a level dip for casters. I just don’t think that’s worth the AC bump. So this is in a awkward position where the feat as a whole gives a lot but each of its pieces are too small to justify a feat on their own. I could maybe see an argument for light armor and martial weapons being a level 1 feat and medium armor and shields being a level 1 feat that requires light armor prof so you need to be a human to get them both.

Also yes martial weapon proficiency is over valued, I will die on this hill. The feat being a half feat like everything else makes it less painful but still.

Or make it a 4th level feat with +1 DX. Now it's a hard choice for wizards. Get the AC boost, great, but you are not boosting Intelligence. Dexterity is nice but not the wizard's focus at this level. As long as Blade Pact warlocks get medium armor and shield as a class feature problem solved.

[Stangler]

My overall impression of the direction of changes is positive but it also really feels like we are only getting a small part of the actual redesign. The strength of the changes in both UAs are the redesign to feats and I expect to see more changes being done through feats in the future. The design definitely seems lacking once you get higher in levels and I hope we will see bigger changes there.

The overall changes to PAM and Xbow expert seem mostly good. I don't get keeping the bonus action attack with PAM. The changes to dual wield seem ok but hard to really know until we see what is going on with the warrior classes. It is definitely a good change for rogues and rangers. I expect the -5/+10 option showing up somewhere else but I am also ok with them scrapping it in favor of something else. The bottom line is that feats re-work seems to be going well and there seems to be a better commitment to balance than baseline 5e. Class to class balance still questionable.

Ranger sees big improvements early on but suffers some of the same issues as before because eventually it scales up primarily through spell casting.

Including changes from the previous UA a low level Ranger has a free feat at level 1, more expertise, 2 cantrips, and benefits from solid half feats at level 4. The benefits of Hunter's Mark not needing concentration end up being important here though BUT that just means they are relying on spells for getting better. Meanwhile if you look at higher levels they go from Volley to Multi-attack. There is no great damage adding feat like there used to be. So I have to wonder if there is some other way the class will end up increasing damage after level 8 or so that isn't included in the play test material. The lack of improvement in their core damage output just seems odd. Multi-attack is not comparable to fighter getting a third attack or Volley. This difference is so clear I can't help but wonder if Volley is going to show up somewhere else. The class just feels unfinished once you get to above level 8 or so.

Rogue seems to make out ok and is mostly impacted by subtle implications of some seemingly minor changes. Dual Wielding change is nice. Charger looks like a great feat for them. Change to sneak attack being only on their turn is tough but I see why they did it. With expertise being more common I think the class is struggling to find their purpose. Still seems like it will be fun to play.

[Telwar]

Shh. It's a nerf to spellcasters and at high level too. Don't want that can of worms spilled.

True, even with sarcasm blue.

I just wish there were second-level spells that were worth preparing past 4th level.

[Jervis]

Or make it a 4th level feat with +1 DX. Now it's a hard choice for wizards. Get the AC boost, great, but you are not boosting Intelligence. Dexterity is nice but not the wizard's focus at this level. As long as Blade Pact warlocks get medium armor and shield as a class feature problem solved.

That is also fair. I personally wouldn’t be apposed if they flip martial weapons to be the level 1 feat while medium armor and shield come in at 4

[Ulsan Krow]

10gp says Paladin and Monk will be Warriors.



I do agree that if everyone is prepared it begs the question of why Sorcerer in the first place. Especially with them sharing even more of the Wizard list now.

At least we'll find out tomorrow. If the Bard is a prepared caster then we'll have reason to believe that's the goal for everyone and that's something we can push back on.

You owe me 10 gp homie

[Dr.Samurai]

Jump should be part of normal movement, not an action, so that needs to be fixed. Barbarian: I jump over the pit and do nothing else. Wizard: I Misty Step over the pit and cast Firebolt. Yeah, no.
*Pex uses Trigger on Dr. Samurai, it's Super Effective!*

Some other thoughts now that I can read through this thing a bit more:

1. Bards

Bards continue to offend my delicate and sophisticated sensibilities. Why... why can they do everything?

Full spellcaster? Check
From different spell lists? Check
Start with any 3 Skills? Check
Four Expertise picks? Check
Half Prof on anything else? Check
Healing spells always prepared? Check
Raise an ally back from 0hp as a Reaction? Check
Weapon and Armor proficiencies and Extra Attack with a subclass? Check

It's obscene. I don't even care if they're not overpowered with all of it, it's just inappropriate *fans himself*.

2. Ranger

Eh... I wonder more and more why this class exists. Like, I don't play these classes because I don't want to cast spells. But if you're going to be magical, just be magical. Being a fighter-lite+slow spell progression is weak sauce. At least Paladins get Smites and Immunities and Auras. Rangers should have some straight up magical features before level 13 that are better than "casts Hunter's Mark better". And TWF needs to go, it doesn't make sense as hunter's don't hunt prey by dual-wielding light weapons. Rangers should be Archery or Spear style. Anyways, not much more to say here.

3. Rogue

I love that Experts are described as having features and elements from other classes and Rogue is like "huh?" while Bard is like "ohhh yeaaah!".

4. I would have much preferred detaching ASIs from feats completely. Oh well, at least they masked that it is still the same exact thing so now I might forgot at some point...

5. Charger - Why? Why remove the attack on a dash feature? I literally have this feat right now on my Rune Knight (along with Mobile). I enjoy getting to where I need to go quickly, and even if obstacles are in the way. My approach to combat is that I should own the battlefield and little should stop my character from getting anywhere and bringing the pain lol. Dash increases speed and jump potential, and Charger lets me attack or push after that. Why remove this? Similar to Jump-as-Action, this is removing mobility or Actions from the martials.

6. Defensive Duelist - No idea why this is restricted to Finesse weapons only. Glad it's a half feat though.

7. Epic Boons - For all the customization in this edition, why are Epic Boons gated behind class grouping? So my Wild Soul Barbarian is tapping into the Feywild to gain powers at random when he rages but he can't gain Misty Step 1/Initiative? Eh... okay.

8. Fighting Styles - Suck. They don't compare to Expertise, or Channel Divinity, or whatever the Mages are going to get. This is not sufficient to be the "Warrior" thing. Get creative with Fighting Styles.

9. Grappler - Good feat. Combined with an unarmed strike you can get yourself Advantage on your follow-up attacks. And I like not being Slowed while grappling/moving as well.

10. Great Weapon Master - Still seems like you'll need it, but now it's a bit boring.

11. Heavily Armored - Tack Str 15 to the prerequisites and I'm down for it :smallamused:

12. Lightly Armored - Lmao, so every caster that doesn't have medium armor will just grab this at level 1?

13. Polearm Master - Why isn't this bonus action attack the case for all styles?

14. Sharpshooter - Shouldn't have "Bypass Cover".

15. Skulker - Did the darkvision rules change? Not having DA on perception checks with Darkvision is a big perk for a skulker. Not sure why it was removed.

16. Exhausted Condition - Unless the Berserker gets to shave off Exhaustion other than on a long rest, still not worth Frenzying too often.

17. Grappled - A saving throw at the end of each turn makes this less reliable than current grappling, but affecting their attacks is a slight buff. I'd probably prefer current grappling rules to the new one.

18. Help - I don't think it should require proficiency in the skill to assist someone. Doesn't make sense, and means that you need redundant proficiencies to make use of Help.

19. Jump - I've already commented on this but shouldn't be an Action and the skill check is a major nerf, as we've all discussed here ad nauseum how slowly skill checks improve for martials. I suggested earlier that a character should be able to use their Strength score in place of the check if they want.

20. Light Weapon - I like the attack being a part of the Attack action, as opposed to a bonus action. Good idea.

21. Study - I love that you can make these checks about monsters.

[jas61292]

I don't love everything here, but I am largely happy. It seems to me like they are trying to fit things to a particular power level, and are not afraid to both buff and nerf to get there. Weapons feats always were too strong, in my opinion, and were almost always banned at my tables, whether I was DM or not. These seem actually fairly balanced. Good, but not overshadowing characters that don't use them.

Similarly, the new Lore Bard seems fine and flavorful and decently strong. We have not seen a new Valor Bard, so I can't exactly compare, but from the get go in 5e, it always felt like Lore overshadowed Valor. This new Lore does not feel like it would do so.

There is a lot going on here, and I certainly have not gotten it all down with a single read through, so there may be things I am missing. And I do feel like in some cases (Ranger) they may have focused on balance in place of flavor. But I think as a whole, especially if thought of as a draft, this is definitely the correct direction that they are taking. And that is not something I was expecting to say.

[JackPhoenix]

Pssst... fighter! Hey, fighter! You wanted to take Ritual Caster for flavor and utility? Well, **** you! You only get 2 level 1 rituals now, can't learn any more. But hey, the feat now grants some extra benefits for casters!

Looks like some changes exist just to fix the screw-up with consolidated spell lists, including Songs of Restoration and school changes for some spells (that make no thematic sense, but are required to get the spells to where they belong).

Also, why the Baator is ranger getting spells as (sub)class features? Favored Enemy is good, but why does Hunter's Mark need to be a spell? So others can pick it up? Just delete the spell and make it a ranger feature outright, as it should've been. Same with Find Steed... I doubt clerics will lose access to conjurations, so they just get magic horses now, apparently.

[Psyren]

You owe me 10 gp homie

5gp. I was half-right. :smallamused:



Also, why the Baator is ranger getting spells as (sub)class features? Favored Enemy is good, but why does Hunter's Mark need to be a spell? So others can pick it up? Just delete the spell and make it a ranger feature outright, as it should've been. Same with Find Steed... I doubt clerics will lose access to conjurations, so they just get magic horses now, apparently.

You can pry my low-level Moon Druid's Hunter's Mark out of his cold dead paws, thank you very much.


IF 1DD Ranger 18 was +d10 on every hit all day concentration-free, I would agree that's a decent capstone. However, as others have repeatedly pointed out, it's +d10 instead of +d6 on every hit all day concentration-free. The most important part of the benefit -- every hit all day concentration-free -- is something the Ranger has from level 1. The upgrade from d6 to d10 is a weak capstone.

Even at +2 average to every hit, that's still on par with the Barbarian's boost from gaining +4 Str. Oh wait, actually it's better, since with the current crit rules, that gets doubled too. Not bad when you can reliably get 5-6 attacks.

So yes, I'm aware it's an increase over what they got early on. Not a massive one, but still good. I'd be cautious about making it even bigger.


Shh. It's a nerf to spellcasters and at high level too. Don't want that can of worms spilled.

Yeah I'm not seeing the complaint here. My only issue is that you're not allowed (as written) to prepare more low-level spells either.

[OldTrees1]

Even at +2 average to every hit, that's still on par with the Barbarian's boost from gaining +4 Str. Oh wait, actually it's better, since with the current crit rules, that gets doubled too. Not bad when you can reliably get 5-6 attacks.


You heard it here first. +0 Atk +2 Dmg is better than +2 Atk +2 Dmg +2 Str Saves +2 Str Checks (and presumably +4 Con since Psyren did not forget Barbarian gets that too).

[Dr.Samurai]

Barbarian's capstone blows ranger capstone out of the water.

Even on crits, the barbarian gets +3 dice on crits at that level so...

[Jervis]

Barbarian's capstone blows ranger capstone out of the water.

Even on crits, the barbarian gets +3 dice on crits at that level so...

Really I hope they change the bonus crit damage thing. It does next to nothing if they don’t have a increased crit range.

[Eriol]

Lots to comment on, but my stand-out might be strange: Search versus Study. A+. Definitely like how that "settles" (at least for me) almost all cases of Investigation versus Perception for things, though interesting how it also rolls in Insight, and such. No more "Insight check!" call or what not, it's a Search action, skill Insight.

Still a few ambiguous ones, like what for noticing an arcane symbol? I'd rule Perception to find it, Arcana to tell what it does. About the only time I'd rule Arcana for finding it is if the wall is patterned, and it's Arcana to realize that a sub-set of that pattern is a real arcane symbol.

Either way, even with the ambiguity, it's a lot clearer than before, and I'm glad of that.

A number of the other changes are... marginal (some good, some bad, some great, some horrible (Ranger capstone? REALLY?) ), but I genuinely like this clarification, as that's what it is IMO, more than a change.

[Psyren]

You heard it here first. +0 Atk +2 Dmg is better than +2 Atk +2 Dmg +2 Str Saves +2 Str Checks (and presumably +4 Con since Psyren did not forget Barbarian gets that too).

When one is melee and javelins only, and the other applies to everything? And one lets you concentrate on other spells while the other doesn't? And one can crit and the other can't? Yeah, totally clear-cut.