Unearthed Arcana - PH Playtest 5 - One D&D [Archive]

Lavaeolus

2023-04-26, 10:43 AM

I definitely like the idea of giving weapons some more specific features. I don't mind how 5e currently does it -- it's simple and relatively flexible -- but it does have a way of making a lot of weapons mostly interchangeable bar a few more unique ones. But especially in a world where one class's whole thing is weapon-mastery and using weapons to hit people, I think letting your choice of weapon open up some tactics is a good idea.

I'll need to skim the UA in more detail before having a firm opinion on the actual implementation, but I'm behind the idea in principle. One change I note: nets! The fact that nets reduce your action to one attack always felt like a bit of an overbalance to me, and it led to a bit of a gamey tactic of finding ways to throw them as a bonus action if you wanted to make use of them (e.g. with Crossbow Expert). That's gone now. Actually, it looks like nets aren't technically weapons at all any more, but gear with some special rules:

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks with a throw of the net at a creature within 15 feet of you...

I haven't gone through the classes yet. We've got looks at new Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. I see that Rage has been given a slight change. You no longer need to take damage or attack. Instead:

The Rage lasts until the end of your next turn, and it ends early if you don Heavy Armor or have the Incapacitated condition. If your Rage is still active on your next turn, you can extend the Rage for another round by doing one or more of the following:

• Make an attack roll against an enemy.
• Force an enemy to make a saving throw.
• Take a Bonus Action to extend your Rage.

Each time the Rage is extended, it lasts until the end of your next turn. You can maintain a Rage for up to 10 minutes.

I'm amused by whatever situation would involve an Barbarian angrily changing into heavy armor mid-Rage, but hey. That bizarre potential loophole is closed. They also get a feature that lets them do Strength (Intimidation) or Strength (Stealth) checks while in Rage, among some other skills, which is kind of funny to visualise.

Oramac

2023-04-26, 10:56 AM

Strength (Stealth) checks while in Rage, among some other skills, which is kind of funny to visualise.

Personally, I love this. I stomp past the guard, silently!

Boverk

2023-04-26, 10:58 AM

Personally, I love this. I stomp past the guard, silently!

"YOU DON'T SEE ME!"

Perception is also interesting "PEOPLE WHO ARE HIDING GET THEIR LEGS BROKE!"

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 10:59 AM

Ugh, Warlock got hosed. Now it's a half caster.

Hael

2023-04-26, 11:03 AM

I continue to be amazed, at just how little they understand of their own game. Like they completely misunderstand how things are actually used by people who have some understanding of how things work.

Random example amongst many…. Hex has been nerfed. Why? I don’t know, it wasnt a very good spell past the first few levels.

Whats worse is they base class features on this. An endgame feature then proudly gives hex without using a spell slot.

This is functionally useless, as no one in their right mind would use concentration for an extra 1d6 damage a round.

Anyway.. brief thoughts. The Barbarian actually looks pretty good, and thats pretty much the only positive of this document. The fighter has terrible features (the champion remains as godawful as ever). The warlock is pretty meh. The sorceror is also pretty uninspiring (except gets the most broken lvl 18 ability you could possibly imagine).

The wizard, if im not mistaken, appears to have been buffed. I mean.. I guess that makes sense!

Dienekes

2023-04-26, 11:05 AM

Alright initial thoughts on this read through.

So I was wrong on Weapon Mastery, it isn’t a switch that turns on and off completely it’s a switch for each individual weapon. That’s… a lot of switches. Fighters get one more than Barbarians, essentially.

But there doesn’t appear to be limits on the uses for each one. So yeah. Weapon switching is on as the go to combat tactic. Especially for Cleave which apparently only works once per turn. Hit with your Greataxe once then mix it up. Unless I’m reading the Attack action wrong, that should be the prime strategy. At least until Fighter 13. I’m legitimately curious why they think the ability is so powerful to be pushed back that far. But alright.

I’ll try it all out of course. But, my excitement is lessened. It looks like they’re being too conservative on the big change, when the big change is the thing I actually want to see.

Im interested in the Sorcerer and very interested in the Wizard. I’ve said this about Vancian casting before, it was one of the best mechanics for making the player think like the class fantasy promotes. You’re supposed to think ahead. You’re supposed to make your plans like the big brain Wizard. Here’s a feature that pushes you to do it. Now, I’m not saying Vancian should come back. I believe that fantasy only worked for the Wizard class and no one else. And while I enjoy mechanics that do the narrative push, Vancian is a gargantuan shove over a hurdle.

But this new wizard method of planning out how to alter their spells? I legitimately like that.

Sorcerer rage? Cool. Some randomization effects? Cool. I kinda wish it was hit even harder as a core principle of the class.

And then the Warlock. Don’t much like it. They took away the most interesting and unique variation on casting in the game. I still prefer the mechanical and narrative unity of having Patron chosen when you actually get your spells. No the handwavy answer from Crawford that they really get their magic from anything doesn’t satisfy. Same with Sorcerers really. But I was amused with his statement how the big gameplay determining choice of subclasses at level 1 for Warlocks weakened the class fantasy of just being a warlock. And then a minute later explaining how level 1 Warlocks have to make a big gameplay determining choice.

It’s annoying to me, that all this time I was waiting for martial classes to come down because this was the thing I was most interested in. Most excited for. Has the most potential to make the gameplay changes I most want to see.

And now it’s dropped and my initial reaction was “Man I should try a Wizard.”

Rafaelfras

2023-04-26, 11:07 AM

Ok reading from the wizard I have some feedback on it.
The class has more substance and I find interesting what it can do to spells. What I find strange that these class features are spells and not just that, class features, but I see that their intention is for those features to consume spell slots. They open up interesting spell play and spell mastery that are themes to the class.
They follow this model for the warlock and the sorcerer too. While the addition of those are very positive, I dont know how to feel then being spells, or consuming spell slots. Its more versatile than just being x/day thats for sure.
The evoker still remains the same, its damage potential is the same and potent cantrip is not a dead feature anymore.
So all in all I am content with this version of the wizard. Its not a big departure from the core wizard and I like these new feature/spells, again I am unsure of them being spells, but the effects are interesting specially change spell.
They seem to have returned to the freedom of preparing spells (unless I missed something) which is very good and FINALLY are in the right steps to turn the level 20 feature in something worthy

OvisCaedo

2023-04-26, 11:19 AM

But I was amused with his statement how the big gameplay determining choice of subclasses at level 1 for Warlocks weakened the class fantasy of just being a warlock.

...Wait, what? Choosing what higher power you formed a pact with at level 1 weakens the class fantasy of... the class whose entire theme is forming a pact with a higher power?

I guess I'd have to watch the video to hear exactly how he phrased it. (but i probably won't, i don't really care that much)

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 11:21 AM

Some of these changes are good - Careful Spell, for instance, is exactly what I've been houseruling for months. But I really don't care for Weapon Mastery, unless we're going to see a decent encumbrance system that prevents weapon hoarding. Also, I don't think martials need more damage. They need help with everything else.

Why is Study an action? If I know the thing, I know the thing, right?

Again, some good changes to rein in multiclassing. But the flavor ain't here for me.

Lavaeolus

2023-04-26, 11:23 AM

So Warlocks seem to have some bigger changes. For one, they don't get Pact Magic any more! They're half-casters. They can still get some access to higher-level spells by taking Mystic Arcanum as an invocation, which'll let them cast whichever spell they chose for it once per long rest. I think this will be a contentious change, although I do know players who picked Warlock thinking they'd get to throw around more spells than they currently can. I don't know if explicitly making them half-casters will change that.

They also no longer necessarily key off Charisma. Instead it depends on Pact:

* Pact of the Blade can key off Wisdom or Charisma.
* Pact of the Chain can key off Intelligence or Charisma.
* Pact of the Tome can key off Intelligence or Wisdom.

The opening up of Warlock abilities isn't unexpected and letting Warlocks go INT has been a house rule of mine, but I think it's interesting that you can even go WIS Warlock now.

The main Pact features have seemingly been converted to cantrips. So, for instance, Pact Weapon is now technically a cantrip given to you when you pick Pact of the Blade. It lets you summon or enchant a simple/martial weapon that doesn't have the Heavy property, so it's still pretty functionally similar. But you now automatically use your spellcasting modifier with it and if it's a thrown weapon, it returns to your hand when thrown. When you reach 5th-level as a Warlock, you automatically get Extra Attack with that weapon.

Essentially they've taken the Hexblade's gimmick and made it standard for Blade Warlocks, which I think is a house rule I've seen commonly enough, along with some other streamlining. All Warlocks also get medium armour (but no shields) by default, with the explicit justification of supporting melee Warlocks better.

Ortho

2023-04-26, 11:29 AM

They're spells, but they're still restricted to those specific classes (see the new Source rules.)

No, I saw. My point is, why make these things spells at all instead of class features?

If the only thing the class feature does is give you a specific spell, why not just cut out the middleman and make the spell the class feature? There's no reason for, say, Memorize Spell to actually be a spell. You could just have the text of the Memorize Spell spell be under the Memorize Spell class feature and it would be more convenient for everyone to access.

Also, there are some very unimaginative names in here. Everything Warlock is Eldritch, everything Wizard is a capital-S Spell.....yeesh.

Hael

2023-04-26, 11:34 AM

Warlocks are pretty hosed. Not only did they lose pact magic for half caster crap, but they end up with fewer overall invocations b/c they have to buy back their mystic arcanum slots. They also got functionally useless features including hex/hexmaster, and appear to have lost quite a few eldritch invocations (improved pact of the blade for instance).

Without access to heavy weapons, I dont know if a bladelock will be competitive with the martials either.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 11:44 AM

My biggest problem with Warlock being a half-caster is that you essentially need to spam Mystic Arcanum to keep up if you're the group's primary caster, and that eats up your invocations fast. It should grant you two choices per invocation if they're both 5th level or lower; that would fix a lot of the bad feeling of the slower slot progression.

No, I saw. My point is, why make these things spells at all instead of class features?

Well, if I had to guess there's three reasons:

1) They're fundamentally optional. You can be an effective wizard if you never modify a single spell, an effective paladin if you never conjure a steed, an effective warlock if you never use a pact familiar or book of shadows etc. Where possible, the stuff in the class entry meanwhile should be the core aspects of the class like Smite.

2) Corollary to the above this stuff is long, really long in some cases, and some of it contains sub-features and statblocks etc. The spellcasting chapter is where the players who don't mind digging through whole paragraphs of text to understand a single ability go. Frontloading that stuff in the class entry frankly sucks for a new player.

3) Future-proofing - there may be new subclasses or even classes in the future that gain access to some of these signature abilities. Pointing the player to somewhere they're going to go anyway (the spells chapter) is better than pointing them to a different class entirely to understand one of these features, where they're more likely to get tripped up by level progression etc.

I think the second one is probably the most prominent but all three of them matter.

P. G. Macer

2023-04-26, 11:59 AM

After a quick skim-read, I’m of decidedly mixed opinion hear, leaning towards negative.

Weapon Mastery is cool, but doesn’t even come close to closing the Martial-Caster gap.

I’m mostly of positive opinion on the Barbarian and Berserker. I’m neutral on the Fighter and Champion. The Sorcerer base class is good I guess, but I loathe most of what they’ve done with the Draconic Sorcery. As for the Warlock base class—“Look at how they massacred my boy”, though the Fiend Patron is mechanically decent. The Wizard seems more interesting and not as “pick the best spells and win” as before, and Evoker is a marked improvement, though the wizard didn’t really need the buffs, especially compared to literally every other class in this packet.

I may incorporate Draconic Resilience’s AC formula change to my own homebrew revision of the Draconic Bloodline (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655892-Revising-the-Draconic-Bloodline-Sorcerer), as it’s simple, neat, and effective.

In conclusion, since I’m already homebrewing buff-revisions for some of the more lackluster 5e class options, I’m probably just going to retrofit the 1D&D changes I feel are good to the base 5e chassis rather than switching systems, unless the D&D design team really gets their act together by 2024.

I also agree with mjp1050 that making class features spells is a bad move.

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 12:00 PM

No, I saw. My point is, why make these things spells at all instead of class features?

If the only thing the class feature does is give you a specific spell, why not just cut out the middleman and make the spell the class feature? There's no reason for, say, Memorize Spell to actually be a spell. You could just have the text of the Memorize Spell spell be under the Memorize Spell class feature and it would be more convenient for everyone to access.

There kind of isn't one. This was handled pretty easily in the class description in the first place, and that mattered because it differed by class. Now you can't alter your spell load out during the day until 5th level, which sucks. By my reading, create spell and modify spell seem broken, since you can iterate on modify spell and then create that spell and them modify it again.

Warlocks are pretty hosed. Not only did they lose pact magic for half caster crap, but they end up with fewer overall invocations b/c they have to buy back their mystic arcanum slots. They also got functionally useless features including hex/hexmaster, and appear to have lost quite a few eldritch invocations (improved pact of the blade for instance).

Without access to heavy weapons, I dont know if a bladelock will be competitive with the martials either.

I don't think they're supposed to be - this version of hexblade seems like it's supposed to be closer to a bladesinger. But I agree, Warlock seems useless.

OvisCaedo

2023-04-26, 12:09 PM

By my reading, create spell and modify spell seem broken, since you can iterate on modify spell and then create that spell and them modify it again.

It looks like "create spell" says that the new spell entirely lacks the "arcane" tag that's needed for a spell to be eligible for "modify spell". So they did at least think of the most obvious exploit loop

paladinn

2023-04-26, 12:17 PM

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 12:23 PM

It looks like "create spell" says that the new spell entirely lacks the "arcane" tag that's needed for a spell to be eligible for "modify spell". So they did at least think of the most obvious exploit loop

I'm glad they closed that loophole off, but I wish they had been more obvious about it. With the current wording, I think a LOT of players will assume the modified spell is Arcane and thus further modifiable.

Beelzebub1111

2023-04-26, 12:34 PM

It seems weird that sorcery is prepared casting. I'll have to do a more in depth read to see if wizards and sorcerers have a diverse class identity.

Unoriginal

2023-04-26, 12:40 PM

Psyren

2023-04-26, 12:50 PM

Working on digesting the new UA..

Can someone explain the Champion's Adaptable Victor feature?
"You’ve studied your friends and foes alike and learned that victory relies on adaptability. Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can gain proficiency in one skill from those available to this class at 1st level, as you remind yourself of
past lessons. This proficiency lasts until the end of your next Long Rest."

If the skill you can choose has to be one "available to this class", don't you already have proficiency??

No, see "Creating a Fighter" - Fighter only gets 2 of the 9 (used to be 8) proficiencies available to their class. Basically, Champion gets an additional floating proficiency. I'd still have preferred another ASI but eh, this is fine.

It seems weird that sorcery is prepared casting. I'll have to do a more in depth read to see if wizards and sorcerers have a diverse class identity.

Yep - we've known this was coming since the Bard UA :smallsmile:

I think they definitely do. Sorcerer looks amazing now and Wizard is still powerful and distinct. Warlock could use a bit of work though.

Telwar

2023-04-26, 12:52 PM

You don't have proficiency in all of your class skills. You have to choose some of them at lvl 1.

Presumably if you *did* somehow get proficiency in all of your class skills, well, maybe Champion isn't the right subclass for you. :)

Joe the Rat

2023-04-26, 12:54 PM

They fixed the trident. now the Versatile Damage Type Trio is complete.

Ooo, and the pick.

Marcloure

2023-04-26, 12:55 PM

It seems weird that sorcery is prepared casting. I'll have to do a more in depth read to see if wizards and sorcerers have a diverse class identity.

Is it not just wording? They still can only change spells on level up, so very different from Wizards and Clerics.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 01:10 PM

Is it not just wording? They still can only change spells on level up, so very different from Wizards and Clerics.

Ahh good point, I missed that. They essentially build their spell lists as spells known rather than having the entire Arcane list to choose from. Actually, rereading it, they've nixed preparations = slots entirely.

Rafaelfras

2023-04-26, 01:46 PM

No, I saw. My point is, why make these things spells at all instead of class features?

If the only thing the class feature does is give you a specific spell, why not just cut out the middleman and make the spell the class feature? There's no reason for, say, Memorize Spell to actually be a spell. You could just have the text of the Memorize Spell spell be under the Memorize Spell class feature and it would be more convenient for everyone to access.

Also, there are some very unimaginative names in here. Everything Warlock is Eldritch, everything Wizard is a capital-S Spell.....yeesh.

For warlocks it makes difference because as cantrips they can get access to all 3 pacts. You choose one as a pact boom and get the cantrip for free, but you can choose 2 other cantrips from your list, unless of course you argue that these cantrips are not in the arcane list so you can't choose then. Which is also fine because if that's the intent you cut access to it from feats like magic initiate.
Another point is if another subclass give you access to that ability is just easier to say "you get the "modify spell" spell and can add to your list"

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 01:50 PM

Boverk

2023-04-26, 01:54 PM

Marcloure

2023-04-26, 01:56 PM

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make sorcerers and wizards peers, let alone equals. Wizards look busted as hell with Modify / Create Spell. Sorcerers got Twinned Spell nerfed HARD. And Sorcerers still don't get anything like Arcane Recovery, or ritual casting. That irritates me, because I LOVE wizards and I want to love sorcerers. But this? This ain't it, chief.

Sorcerers gain more spells known per level now, and also some additional Sorcerer specific spells. But yes, the Wizard's Create Spell is super busted; it can make any utility spell a ritual spell, and only prepare combat spells now. We circled back to 4e.

HX2GPX

2023-04-26, 01:56 PM

Is no one going to address the sorcerer's new 18th lvl ability!!!

They essentially get a the ability to cast any spell of any lvl below 9 once a day, and can also use the other, weirder part of Wish an infinite amount of times. This seems like unnecessary amounts of worry for the DM, as now an 18th lvl caster can cast a wish every day with no chance of losing it. This seems rather OP.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 02:00 PM

For warlocks it makes difference because as cantrips they can get access to all 3 pacts. You choose one as a pact boom and get the cantrip for free, but you can choose 2 other cantrips from your list, unless of course you argue that these cantrips are not in the arcane list so you can't choose then. Which is also fine because if that's the intent you cut access to it from feats like magic initiate.
Another point is if another subclass give you access to that ability is just easier to say "you get the "modify spell" spell and can add to your list"

The Warlock cantrips aren't on the Arcane spell list, so you cannot choose them outside of the Pact Boon feature. The fact that they aren't on the Arcane list does prevent Magic Initiate from choosing them, but making them class features rather than spells would also accomplish that goal.

I suppose it does leave open the possibility of another class/subclass granting the spell specifically. But making these features into spells seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 02:05 PM

But making these features into spells seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I think you just identified the problem with this whole UA.

Oramac

2023-04-26, 02:19 PM

ZRN

2023-04-26, 02:30 PM

So Warlocks seem to have some bigger changes. For one, they don't get Pact Magic any more! They're half-casters. They can still get access to higher-level spells by taking Mystic Arcanum as an invocation, though, which'll let them cast whichever spell they chose for it once per long rest. I think this will be a contentious change, although I do know players who picked Warlock thinking they'd get to throw around more spells than they currently can. I don't know if explicitly making them half-casters will change that.

I don't like this change. First, I don't think the people giving feedback that they want warlocks to cast more spells meant that they wanted their level 12 warlock to be able to cast half a dozen first-level spells a day (and nothing above third level). Second, they did a good thing by getting rid of some of the invocation "taxes" (e.g. Thirsting Blade) and adding an an extra invocation, but then they more than negate that by cutting ALL mystic arcanums (arcana?) from the class features and making you spend invocations on them.

Warlocks as half-casters, man, really just doesn't work for me. Previously you could eldritch blast (or go pact of the blade) for a repetitive but competent baseline contribution to combat, but you had powerful spells to spice things up once or twice a combat. Now it's usually a waste of an action to cast a spell (other than eldritch blast) in combat. It's fully possible that a playtest warlock can still be reasonably powerful (Shield is great, etc.) but I don't like the change.

verbatim

2023-04-26, 02:33 PM

The shown martials and sorcerer seem cool, haven't given warlock enough thought yet but making Mystic Arcanum into invocations really limits invocation flexibility and I think that's a tragedy.

Did Wizard get hurt at all outside of less prep spells? I get that the meme is they always get the good stuff, but it feels like a lot of classes took nerfs going to 5.5e and Wizards gained the ability to pay for permanent metamagic (this is cool, I'm mainly talking relative power to other classes) and also the ability to get medium armor and shield prof off of one feat.

ZRN

2023-04-26, 03:09 PM

For a less negative response, I like the barbarian a lot and the fighter a decent amount.

Fighter: The nerf to action surge kinda hurts but it was always dumb to see wizards take levels of fighter to double-cast spells, etc. Indomitable is another big, good change. They did a good job overall of keeping the higher levels spicy - it's no longer the case that you feel like you're playing suboptimally by not taking levels of barbarian or rogue or something after level 11. Weapon Adept is pretty cool - you're making actual round-by-round tactical choices with it. Weapon Expert (the level 7 one) is weirder - how often will you actually switch your mastery for a particular weapon on a long rest? But given how many magic longswords there are in the game and how terrible Flex is it'll definitely get use.

(Another note on mastery traits: it's cool the way that the trait prerequisite works, so that e.g. you can put Push and Topple on your longbow because longbows are Heavy. Lots of cool options there.)

Barbarian: Ah, the barbarian, the master of stealth, with a minimum roll of 20 on stealth checks even in heavy armor as long as he's angry enough. (I kid.) Very cool changes overall. I actually really like the skill stuff - stealth could be odd but it could also make a lot of sense in some cases, so I don't mind it being on the list.

Wizard: (Time to be negative again.) OK, if evoker is one of the subclasses, and we only get 4 per class, who else makes the cut? Definitely diviners, necromancers, and abjurers, right? Also, wow, they did NOT balance Modify+Create Spell. Like, the following are all now basically rituals: Control Weather, Mirage Arcane, Contingency, Guards & Wards, Scrying, Hallucinatory Terrain, Fabricate, Clairvoyance. And that evoker subclass sure was unique from level 3 to level 9, when all the sudden every blasting spell in the book gets modified to only affect enemies.

arisroot

2023-04-26, 03:14 PM

Sorcerers gain more spells known per level now, and also some additional Sorcerer specific spells. But yes, the Wizard's Create Spell is super busted; it can make any utility spell a ritual spell, and only prepare combat spells now. We circled back to 4e.

Only if the spell already has a casting time over 10 minutes. There aren't too many of those that I can recall that would change much since these types of spells are usually used during downtime anyway. Is there an example of busted spell that you can think of?

OvisCaedo

2023-04-26, 03:16 PM

Looking at Warlock and Sorc's level 18 features against each other is absolutely hilarious

paladinn

2023-04-26, 03:24 PM

I'm starting to appreciate 5e as-is much more now.

I may grab a few of the new fighter features and the sorcerer's new spells-per-day chart, but that may be it.

Marcloure

2023-04-26, 03:26 PM

Lavaeolus

2023-04-26, 03:28 PM

I don't like this change. First, I don't think the people giving feedback that they want warlocks to cast more spells meant that they wanted their level 12 warlock to be able to cast half a dozen first-level spells a day (and nothing above third level). Second, they did a good thing by getting rid of some of the invocation "taxes" (e.g. Thirsting Blade) and adding an an extra invocation, but then they more than negate that by cutting ALL mystic arcanums (arcana?) from the class features and making you spend invocations on them.

Warlocks as half-casters, man, really just doesn't work for me. Previously you could eldritch blast (or go pact of the blade) for a repetitive but competent baseline contribution to combat, but you had powerful spells to spice things up once or twice a combat. Now it's usually a waste of an action to cast a spell (other than eldritch blast) in combat. It's fully possible that a playtest warlock can still be reasonably powerful (Shield is great, etc.) but I don't like the change.

I agree, honestly. If this change is stuck with, I think I'd like Mystic Arcanum to not compete with invocations. But Pact Magic was one of Warlock's unique traits and while we have a stated justification for the change:

The most-requested change to Warlocks has been for them to be able to use their spells more often. They therefore now cap out at 15 Spell Slots instead of 4.
...that heavier spellcasting is, as you say, now limited to lower level spells. The earlier Mystic Arcanum is probably meant to patch this magical gap, but its once-per-long-rest clause is pretty limiting when (for most of a campaign) it's your only access to 4th-level-or-higher spells.

Oramac

2023-04-26, 03:34 PM

The most-requested change to Warlocks has been for them to be able to use their spells more often. They therefore now cap out at 15 Spell Slots instead of 4.

...that heavier spellcasting is, as you say, now limited to lower level spells. Mystic Arcanum is probably meant to patch this magical gap, but its once-per-long-rest clause is pretty limiting when (for most of a campaign) it's your only access to 4th-level-or-higher spells.

I don't mind the half-caster thing, but I can see where you're coming from here.

I guess the question is, what's the middle ground? People want more casting, but not on a "standard" caster chassis.

Personally, I'd just say they get more maximized spell slots. Perhaps capping out at 10-12 maxed slots instead of 15 single-level slots.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 03:48 PM

ZRN

2023-04-26, 03:50 PM

Only if the spell already has a casting time over 10 minutes. There aren't too many of those that I can recall that would change much since these types of spells are usually used during downtime anyway. Is there an example of busted spell that you can think of?

I made a list in my post a couple up from yours. Scrying and Contingency are a couple examples that IMHO were partially balanced by the fact that they cost a spell slot. Now any time you've got 10 minutes to spare it's dumb NOT to cast your free Contingency. Scrying is even worse because there are plenty of times where casting it a dozen times in a row is probably more powerful than intended. (Bad guy beat the save DC? No problem, try each of his 400 minions one at a time!)

Talij

2023-04-26, 03:52 PM

The intention for Hex Master has to be you can cast Hex for free at 5th level, right? As written it obviously shouldn't be interpreted that way, but otherwise its significantly weaker than wizards 15th level ability to CHOSE a 1st AND 2nd level spell to get at will. Even free 5th level castings seems is weaker than sorcerer arguably wizard's 18th level spell.

Oramac

2023-04-26, 03:57 PM

Honestly, I think the answer is to make short rests easier and more attractive overall, so that the Warlock player isn't the only one calling for a short rest.

That's fair, but how? You'd pretty much have to give every class a short rest resource to worry about, in addition to whatever other features they're juggling. Doable, but it would add a lot of bookkeeping that a bunch of players don't or won't do.

Trask

2023-04-26, 04:02 PM

The most-requested change to Warlocks has been for them to be able to use their spells more often. They therefore now cap out at 15 Spell Slots instead of 4.

This resulting in a half-caster warlock feels like a poorly worded Wish gone wrong.

Hurrashane

2023-04-26, 04:02 PM

Don't know if this was the case in previous UAs but Hand crossbows are light, and the light description doesn't need them to be melee weapons for TWF. And with the attack rules that allow you to unequip and equip between attacks that means you can always have a hand free to load it.

Weird that Darts aren't light tho. Can throw two daggers but not two darts.

ZRN

2023-04-26, 04:03 PM

I don't mind the half-caster thing, but I can see where you're coming from here.

I guess the question is, what's the middle ground? People want more casting, but not on a "standard" caster chassis.

Personally, I'd just say they get more maximized spell slots. Perhaps capping out at 10-12 maxed slots instead of 15 single-level slots.

Options I'd consider:

1. Give them 1 more spell/short rest at maybe level 5-7.
2. Change the short rest mechanic to take 10 minutes instead of 30 so they party whines less.
3. Give them an ability to refresh their expended slots as a bonus action once/long rest.

But I feel that their reasoning is disingenuous to begin with. A level 20 warlock doesn't have 4 slots vs. 15 unless the party isn't taking any short rests; it should be 8-12/day, plus 4 more from arcanum which now costs an invocation, so overall this is basically a nerf in spells/day, not even to mention the fact that they're mostly unusably low-level.

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 04:05 PM

That's fair, but how? You'd pretty much have to give every class a short rest resource to worry about, in addition to whatever other features they're juggling. Doable, but it would add a lot of bookkeeping that a bunch of players don't or won't do.

Most classes have SR refresh class abilities (like ki, channel divinity, bardic inspiration, wild shape). The only ones who don't are barbarians, rogues and sorcerers. Just make short rests 10 minutes and tie that to old school exploration turns so time feels like a meaningful resource. Worked great for me the last few years.

Ignimortis

2023-04-26, 04:10 PM

Psyren

2023-04-26, 04:12 PM

You are right, the spell has to have at least 10 minutes of casting time, not at most as I read at first

Glyph of Warding as a ritual seems really good. They should also probably just delete Simulacrum from the game at this point.

Dienekes

2023-04-26, 04:21 PM

Hoo boy. This is hilarious. I was not expecting WotC to go this hard with Wizard buffs. My predictions will be fully realized and spot-on if/when Monk comes out and turns out to be slightly nerfed compared to default Tasha-era Monk.

Seriously, Wizards get to prepare metamagic'd spells and then make them the default...and Fighters get to...have TWO basic weapon properties, most of which are lame, but only apply one per attack, or it'll be too broken!

Right. I don't think you and I are going to get the warrior classes we want from this game. I just don't anymore. For the record, Crawford has said in the last two or three videos that:

1) Playing with these Masteries has been the most fun he's ever had playing a martial class. More than Tome of Battle. More than 4e. More than Superiority Dice in the final form and in the a bit more interesting Next Playtest where they refreshed every turn.

2) He's playing the Champion.

I'm pretty sure at this point what he wants and what I (and pardon me for assuming but I'm going to guess you as well) want are two diametrically opposed things.

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 04:22 PM

Does anyone else think it's weird you can be a fiend pact Warlock who summons a celestial familiar?

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 04:28 PM

Gignere

2023-04-26, 04:29 PM

Is it not just wording? They still can only change spells on level up, so very different from Wizards and Clerics.

Yeah looks like it’s just making the terms and wording between classes more uniform. Now all spell casters prepare spells but sorcerers, warlocks and likely bards can only prepare new spells on level up.

Ignimortis

2023-04-26, 04:31 PM

Crawford has said in the last two or three videos that:

1) Playing with these Masteries has been the most fun he's ever had playing a martial class. More than Tome of Battle. More than 4e. More than Superiority Dice in the final form and in the a bit more interesting Next Playtest where they refreshed every turn.

2) He's playing the Champion.

I'm pretty sure at this point what he wants and what I (and pardon me for assuming but I'm going to guess you as well) want are two diametrically opposed things.

This has to be straight-up disingenuous on his part, unless he's never played a martial before at all, or only played the default 5e champion.

But yes, my expectations were pretty much set since the Expert package, and boy, WotC still found a way to disappoint me!

In other news, GWM and Sharpshooter bonus damage seem to be missing entirely, so martial damage is actually cut compared to 5e PHB.

animorte

2023-04-26, 04:37 PM

That irritates me, because I LOVE wizards and I want to love sorcerers. But this? This ain't it, chief.
That's typically been the exact opposite of me (preferring Sorcerer over Wizard), but you may be delighted to know that I've got myself a wizard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654623-Convince-me-to-play-a-Wizard-(HotDQ-tRoT)) prepared to run soon!

Also, welcome back friend!

Zevox

2023-04-26, 04:37 PM

Oh boy, well, here we go.

Personally, my overall impressions having read over all of the classes and mastery abilities, and glanced over the rest: not terribly impressed. Now having seen their first pass at everything but the Monk, my confidence that what I'll be doing with this new version is cherry-picking the good ideas for house-rules in 5E games and otherwise ignoring it is pretty high. Unless a lot changes between now and the final version, I don't see myself getting the new edition based on this.

Going over more specific impressions...
Weapon changes: I like the Trident doing more damage, but dislike the changes to the Lance. Under this version it would be impossible to do what my current character does with it and live the Knight wielding a lance and shield while mounted fantasy. And it would actually now be impossible for my character to use at all, since he's a Halfling, and it gained the Heavy property. Also really don't like the guns being on the PHB weapons list, even with a disclaimer that the DM determines their availability. Those seriously impact setting flavor, and including them in the default will create the impression to new players that they should usually expect them to be in most settings.

Weapon Mastery stuff: I could go over all of these individually, but I think my reaction to it is mostly at the big-picture level. My own group has been using the Kobold Press rules for Weapon Maneuvers, with small modifications for specific maneuvers we didn't like, for a while now, and looking at this, I cannot see why we would ever prefer this to that. It's so much more limited and uninspired.

Barbarian: Rare case where I don't have much bad to say. Allowing them to use a bonus action to keep rage going so they can't be put in a position where maintaining rage is impossible is a good idea - although I don't think they should've removed taking damage as a way to keep it going at the same time, as that was flavorful. Getting more health when Relentless Rage kicks in. The changes to Frenzy are good on the Berserker end of things, as is Intimidating Presence's DC using strength instead of charisma. I do look at the "Primal Knowledge" skill and tilt my head, though. I get allowing them to substitute strength in Intimidation checks while raging, that's obviously perfectly understandable, and I can even stretch things to make Acrobatics kinda make some sense. But the other three skills, not so much, especially Stealth, which you'd think a rage should if anything be very detrimental to.

Fighter: A lot of this is tied up in the weapon mastery stuff, and I'm generally not the target audience for the class outside of specific subclasses (Eldritch Knight and Psychic Warrior, mainly). Seems like someone who liked the weapon mastery stuff might be happy with it, but since I'm happier with a separate thing my group already has, I just kind of shrug and pass this one over, personally.

Sorcerer: And now we get more into the stuff I'll be complaining about, since we're into the classes I'm more interested in/opinionated about. Why the hell are half of their new class features spells? They're clearly designed as class features, not spells. I mean hell, they're pretty close to flavorless other than "power associated with a sorcerer." Things like Sorcery Incarnate and Sorcerous Vitality are mechanically fine, but feel like mechanics for their own sake, not because they represent anything flavorful about the class. I also don't get why all Sorcerers now get Chaos Bolt, Arcane Eruption, and that new "Sorcerous Burst" cantrip. The former two seem appropriate for a Wild Magic Sorcerer, but not necessarily other types, and the latter is just another flavorless and uninspired ability. And they really need to just rename Twinned Spell if that's how they're going to make it work, because that name no longer fits that effect at all. It's not doubling up on a spell, it's saving you a spell slot, and they added an awkward prerequisite in order to justify the name. I'll give them this on the Sorcerer: most of the other changes to metamagic are good... although Distant Spell bringing back caster level dependent spell range is not something I want.

For the Draconic Sorcerer specifically, I don't like the change to Dragon Speech. What you gain feels minimal (how many Dragon-type creatures didn't already speak Draconic?), and what you lose is being able to use Draconic to talk to other characters who know the language. I'd much rather have the language. And I'm not thrilled with tying their higher-level abilities to those new "spells" like they do.

Warlock: I'm going to be the weird person who does not like the change to Warlocks' main ability score. I cannot personally see the class as anything but a Charisma caster, and I especially don't like that now my preferred version of the class, Pact of the Tome, cannot be that. And like with the Sorcerer, for no reason, some of their class features are now spells. And while I'm glad they want to give the class more spell slots and no longer tie them to short rests, I strongly dislike them becoming a half-caster class. In the video they commented that the Warlock "occupies a similar design space to the Paladin and Ranger" to justify that, and I can't imagine where they get that idea. Paladins and Rangers are fundamentally martial classes that get some spellcasting ability - the Holy Knight and the Natural Warrior, basically. The Warlock in concept is still all about magic. The Pact of the Blade offers them the ability to have some martial capability, but that's like pointing to the College of Valor Bard as a reason to make that class a half-caster. And yes, they didn't get actual spell slots beyond 5th level before, but the big deal here is that they now get higher-level spell slots a lot slower than before. And that in order to gain the same number of true high-level spells as before they now need to spend almost half of their Invocations on Mystic Arcanum, which also sucks.

I'll give them this: the Blade Pact is functionally better now, and there are improvements as far as a lot of the undesirable Invocations go. But at the same time, the Chain Pact now suffers the same fate as Wild Shape and gives you a generic stat block for a familiar, removing most of its appeal from the get-go. So yeah, not a lot for me to like here.

Wizard: This one practically feels like they've done deliberate self-parody with the features they turned into spells. I mean, you now cast a spell in order to scribe a spell into your spellbook. Seriously? How did they make that with a straight face? It's so dumb. And some of the others would be fine as class features, but as spells, they just feel so utterly out of place. I mean, when you're calling a spell "Create Spell..." just wow; I want to say more, but I'd pretty much be repeating what I said about Scribe Spell but in different words. I'm also not a big fan of them allowing Wizards to change the damage type of spells with Modify Spell - yes, it's much less flexible than what a Sorcerer gets since they can't do it on the fly, and I do appreciate them at least trying to keep that in-flavor that way, but I still feel that should be a Sorcerer's domain exclusively, not a Wizard's.

Granted, outside of those new class features that are arbitrarily spells, not much changed with the Wizard, which is fine IMO. But just the fact that they've done that is so laughable that I cannot imagine what they were thinking.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-26, 04:45 PM

Ok, just read the 50 for the 1st time.

Modify Spell is nice, you pay a 4th level slot to add a metamagic effecto to one spell until your next long rest, a 4th vl slot is quite an investment at lvl 7, and if you wanna modify 2 spells, you need to spend a 5th level slot and so on, it get more powerful the higher your level since you can afford to spend higher level slots in order to have more spells modified, but I think while powerful, its somewhat fair, you get either Transmute, Distant, Careful, Subtle lite, Super Concentration which can be pretty nice for some specific spells like Haste, or Ritual, which I think can break some spells.

Rukelnikov's Antipathy allows you to spend 2 hours to create a 10 day duration, no attunement, only need to be carried, magical object that forces X type of creature to save or be repulsed by you. Have a free afternoon? Spend those 8 hours making 4 magic items! Also, "free" Guard and Wards, Mirage Arcane and Hallucinatory Terrain, sound very interesting.

Create Spell though, seems very powerful, it'll probably won't get out of hand until T4 due to economic and downtime constraints, but the first campaign a wizard ends post 9 you can expect them to be sinking their gold into improving most (every?) spell in their book. I like the idea of the feature, and will definitely say so in the feedback, but I'm a bit concerned about it being too powerful.

Warlock has been gutted in theme, losing pact magic, but mechanically they are not as bad as some people seem to think, if you spend every invocation from level 5 onwards on mystic arcanum, you are only a couple slots behind a full caster, and on par on highest spell level available. By the time you get base 3rd/4th and 5th level slots, you can trade those arcanums for something else, though I could see keeping some for extra spells/long rest.

If we do this, given that this Warlock doesn't have pact magic, they can be more directly compared to other full casters, Lock a smidge less spells per long rest and lesser flexibility in their preparation (a stricter Vancian... round and round it goes?), and to compensate they get the Boon, and a couple Invocations.

Tome was gutted, getting access to pretty much every cantrip in the game is very nice, but getting any 3 cantrips and the higher level rituals was nicer IMO. In exchange you get Ago Blast+ for free, saving an invocation is nice, so if you are not interested in familiars or weapons you are till getting an invocation's worth out of your pact. Blade gets Thirsting for free, and Chain gets Voice for free.

So 1 more invocation overall, and 1 "free" invocation from boon which was previously mostly a tax, but now 4 invocation taxes in the form of Mistyc 6-9 means overall 2 less "flex" invocations.

However, I think these Locks would still see play, why? Because you can qualify for the class with any mental stat, and you can get a feat with only 2 levels in it. Sure its only 1st level feats, that includes Alert, Lucky, Magic Initiate, Tough and all the Fighting Styles. For just 2 levels, you get every cantrip in the game, or using your mental stat for weapon attacks and making weapons returning, a 1st level feat, another invocation of your choice and 1 "effective caster level". I think Locks will make for very tempting dips, maybe those dips hurt in the long run, but... even that's a bit thematic.

Hex Master is a joke of a feature.

Sorcerer 18 is insane and I love it. Dragon Sorc went from permanent flight at 18 to improving a specific concentration to grant flight... I dig Sorcery Incarnate as a spell, but it being concentration if all subs are gonna be modifiying it, you get trapped between not using other concentration spells or not using your subclass features. If that's the idea of the class, then that feature need more customizability, either more beneficial bullet points which you get to choose from, or straight up reducing sorcery point costs by 1 while active, so you can really make use of your metamagics while its on (1d4 sp is not nearly enough to warrant that), and your customization comes in the form of which MM you picked (though you get 3 now and... 3 more at 10? I don't like that bump, why not incrementals?)

Fighter Design wise I really dislike the new levels for fighters extra feats, IDK why but when looking at the table there's something very wrong with bonus feat 4, bonus feat 5, bonus feat 15, bonus feat 16.

Masteries are nice, could be better, but I don't think Weapon Adept is as bad as its being painted, unless I'm missing something, changing weapons ain't as easy as it was in the first UAs, you can only draw or stow 1 weapon per attack action, and dropping your weapon is included in stowing, so its not like you can attack with a Greatsword and a Halberd on the same turn without some special feature. This does make throwing weapons awesome though, since you can equip and unequip the weapon as part of the attack.

Cleave lends itself very nice to Weapon Mastery, since the secondary attack made by cleave can benefit from the other property of the weapon, and GWM already can only trigger once per turn, meaning you get the most out of it by hitting once a turn with said weapon, and in that one attack you can make use of both properties.

Vex seems kinda strong, will I have advantage on the attack after this one? No, use Vex weapon, Yes, use something else. Its situationally the weakest or one of the strongest.

Woggle

2023-04-26, 04:46 PM

Overall mixed, I think. Barbarian looks really good to me. I've always had a soft spot for Berserkers, and it looks very solid now. TWF for barbs, assuming you pick use weapons with the Nick mastery, seems quite good, with no bonus action competition.

Fighter I'm not quite so happy with, but it's still an improvement. Don't know why Second Wind doesn't recover a use on a short rest, just like the Druid/Paladin's Channel Nature/Divinty do. Seems like an oversight to me. Indomitable being actually useful now is great. Champion still doesn't look very good to me, but it's my least favourite subclass by a country mile so I don't know.

Warlock I'm torn on. I don't think it looks quite as bad as some people are saying, but Mystic Arcanum requiring invocations does restrict a fair amount. Getting a free cast of a patron spell is nice. The 18th level feature HAS to let you cast a 5th level Hex, right? ...Right? Also Armour of Shadows looks pretty unappealing now that Warlocks get medium armour.

Sorcerer I like, at least the base class. Twin got hit pretty hard, but everything has been improved nicely; I think it's a pretty good spot.

I don't think Wizard needed any buffs. Oh well.

tokek

2023-04-26, 04:58 PM

All right, I finally finished reading the entire 50 stinkin pages. lol.

I guess I'm the oddball here, as I actually quite like nearly everything in this one. Just some quick notes:

Mastery: I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, it brings much needed variety and versatility to weapons specifically and martials in general. OTOH, it promotes the Golf-Bag-of-Weapons thing, and I foresee it either requiring a lot of micro management or being a set-it-and-forget-it mechanic, depending on the player.

Spellcasting: They removed the stupid ass "Prepare spells equal to your spell slots" wording!! This is fantastic!!

Barbarian: Damn near perfect, imo. I'd prefer to see Brutal Critical earlier, but I can live with it at 11th level. And Frenzy is actually useful now.

Fighter: Also pretty good. Not as good as the Barbarian, but good. The Champion is supposed to be dead simple, and it is. Call it boring if you want, but it hits the mark.

Sorcerer: Other than Twinned Spell, this is also really good. But they nerfed Twin hard. I'm definitely not happy about that. I really like the sorc-only spells here too. They're thematic and flavorful, and feel about right for a sorcerer. I only wish they'd shown the Wild Magic sorc instead of the Draconic sorc. Oh well.

Warlock: Again, I'm going against the grain here. I think changing warlocks to half-casters is a good idea. I'm not so sure about making Mystic Arcanum an Invocation, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic with the warlock in this UA.

Wizard: I love the laser focus on scholarly learning and preparedness here. I agree that the Scribe/Modify/Create spells should probably be class features, but I can understand why they're not, so it's whatever.

I'm more with you than most of the reactions.

Barbarian, they are not really my thing but it seems pretty solid. Brutal Critical is fractionally better but more importantly they don't double and treble down on it like before

Fighter. Indomitable works!! Seriously this is a lot of the fix that fighter needed. At level 17 they can do it 6 times per day (using your second wind for anything else is dumb, so don't). At which point they have an ability that even 17th level full casters have to glance at with envy - the ability to shrug off save or suck stuff with a high level of reliability. I think you will now see even quite optimised builds staying in Fighter to grab this ability late-game.

Sorcerer. Feels like giving with one hand and taking with the other but some of the features are super-cool and if you didn't take twin spell you are not really losing anything.

Wizard. I would like to see the new scribe-like features in action before deciding if they break anything.

Warlock. This one needs playtesting. Its a huge change, you can't look at an existing warlock and see how to translate them over easily because the changes are too big for that. My initial impression was negative but a rebuild of my current 6th level warlock actually looked fine with the new UA. I think a 1-20 rebuild of a decent character (not a crazy optimised thing, single classed decent warlock) will settle my thoughts on whether the new version works at all. There are definitely changes here I don't like such as tomelocks apparently not being able to scribe new spells into their book of shadows.

Ortho

2023-04-26, 05:02 PM

Ok, now I can actually sit down and take a proper deep dive into the document. All 50 pages of it.... here we go!

Weapons:

Guns are now in the PHB. Personally, I think guns in fantasy should be explored a bit more, but I don't think guns should be a player-facing option since it relies so much on DM/setting buy-in.
Weapon Mastery! Hip hip hooray! Weapons actually innately do cool things! This'll be fun to play around with.

Spells:

A few spells that were de facto class features (Vicious Mockery, Eldritch Blast, etc) are now actually class features. Nice.
I always wondered why Sending wasn't originally a Divination spell. I'm glad to see that's been fixed.
Sorcerers and Warlocks actually have some unique, thematic spells that they don't share with Wizards. That's good.
I pointed this out upthread, but a lot of these new spells seem like class features that they made spells for no good reason. If the spell itself is indistinguishable from a class feature, and gaining the spell is literally the only thing that the class feature with the exact same name grants, then at that point just make the darn thing a proper class feature. In particular, Book of Shadows, Create Spell, Memorize Spell, Modify Spell, Pact Weapon, Scribe Spell, Sorcerous Vitality (and arguably Hex and Pact Familiar) could all very easily be class features.
Seriously, there's no reason that adding a spell to your spellbook should, in and of itself, be a spell.

Feats:

Epic boons now actually feel epic, though I'm still not a fan of limiting them to specific superclasses. Let me be a Fighter who teleports after every attack, darn it!
Epic Boons now increase the max of one Ability Score to 30. Mind you, the de facto cap is 23 (Barbarian excepted), since the Epic Boon only increases it by 1 and you get an additional +2 from your class. Which is a bit of a letdown, since 20th level promises massive ASI gains and then doesn't deliver.

Barbarian:

I appreciate that it's easier to keep Rage up and going.
Considering it's the backbone of the class, I can't help but feel that Barbarians should be able to use Rage more often. Sure, 2-6 uses is...fine, and will probably get you through the adventuring day, but you still have to kind of ration it. Especially now that you can use Rage out of combat, you're going to blow through it very quickly indeed.
I've never been a fan of how Rage Damage is just an extra +2/+4 damage. It seems both very arbitrary and very small. Maybe make it so you can add your CON modifier to damage instead? I don't know, I'm just spitballing; but I'd love to see Rage Damage become more impactful.
I love that you can use Rage as a tool for intimidation now. That's absolutely wonderful.
Reckless Attack should really be chosen for every attack you make, not just once for your turn.
It still doesn't feel like there's much of a reason to play a high-level Barbarian. There's just not much to keep you engaged past 9th level.
Going back to bullet point #2, Rage Resurgence is not a thing that I think should exist. Sure, on paper it's better to have it than not have it, but it really just comes across as a bandaid for the Barbarian not getting enough uses of Rage in the first place.
Beserker still seems to be the "vanilla" subclass, but at least it's actually playable this time. It's still nothing to write home about, though.

Fighter:

WotC is really pushing for Fighters to be "the weapons guy/girl". You know what? I'm ok with that, since it gives Fighters a more distinct identity.
Ooooooo, Second Wind gets enough uses to justify it's own column in the leveling table!
I'm not a fan of how Action Surge got nerfed. Even if the Fighter can't innately use the Magic action, I'd at least like the option to.
Indomitable is awesome now, to the point where I strongly suspect it'll get nerfed before release. Bummer. Let my 20th-level Fighter roll with +31 to a saving throw, just once!
Just a bit of wording cleanup: Two Extra Attacks and Three Extra Attacks should probably read: "You can attack thrice/four times whenever you take the Attack action on your turn". Otherwise a player could get confused and think they have one less attack than they do (I've done this more than once).
You know what vibe I'm getting from the Fighter now? Determinator (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Determinator). What with Indominable, Unconquerable, and more uses of Second Wind, I'm seeing someone who will just push through whatever obstacle is put in front of them and will. Not. Give. UP.
Curiously, WotC has not made Battlemaster maneuvers a class feature for Fighters. Considering how much maneuvers were pushed in 5e, I honestly thought they would be more prominent in the playtest.
I'd prefer it if the Champion actually did something with the additional critical hits that you gain, on top of the improvements present in this playtest. This version still isn't very....coherent.

Sorcerer:

I know I already went on a prolonged rant about how class features shouldn't be spells, but Sorcerous Burst and Chaos Bolt actually work because they're both something that can only work as spells.

Spellcasting gives more spells to the Sorcerer over the life of the character, now capping at 22 rather than 15. This is one of the most-requested changes to the class
Damn straight it is. For comparison's sake, this is the same amount as a 5e Bard, but that's still a massive improvement.
And now back to your regularly scheduled rant: Arcane Eruption and Sorcery Incarnate should be actual class features, not spells. A class feature that grants a spell and has the same name as the spell is completely redundant, just copy/paste the text of the spell into the class feature.
I do not like the pacing of Metamagic; you really shouldn't have to wait 11 levels to get more.
Speaking of Metamagic, Twin Spell got nerfed into the ground. In lieu of casting a spell twice, you can instead cast the spell....again. On your next turn. For a measly 2 Sorcery Point discount. Yep, this stinks.
In stark contrast to what the 5e Sorcerer got, this version has frickin' Wish as a capstone! That is one heck of a capstone, and I am all for that!
I can't help but feel like the Draconic Sorcery's Elemental Affinity should be a 3rd level option, since elemental typing is the iconic part of a D&D dragon and you probably want that online a little earlier.
Related to the above rant: subclass features shouldn't key off of spells!

Something else to note is that the playtest is moving away from the "You know one spell per spell slot" nonsense. Thank goodness for that.

Warlock:

The Invocations have been cleaned up nicely, I wonder what else-
Oh no.
Oh no no no.
no no no no no no no no no
stop please stop

Wizard:

Really leaning into the whole "learned scholar" angle here, aren't you, WotC?
I still feel like Arcane Recovery should be a Sorcerer ability. It just feels more natural on them.
Seems like spells prepared is now a flat number, rather than being based off of your Intelligence modifier. I'm opposed to this on thematic grounds, but practically speaking this isn't that much of a change, so I can't get too upset about it.
You know how I've ranted about how spells shouldn't be class abilities? Yeah, I'm mostly talking about right here. Scribing a spell into your spellbook is now a spell? Swapping a prepared spell is now a spell?? Who thought this was a good idea?!?
Should probably clarify that the spell made with the Create Spell ability can't then be modified with the Modify Spell ability to create an infinitely more convenient spell. Basically explicitly close the infinite loop.
I never thought I'd say this, but the Wizard capstone stinks compared to the Sorcerer capstone. We're comparing Wish and a single casting of two third-level spells. Might want to up the game a little bit here.

I'm not going to touch the Glossary because this post is long enough already and there's not a lot of new content to really discuss. Also, I spent two hours on this post and I want to be done.

ZRN

2023-04-26, 05:04 PM

Woggle

2023-04-26, 05:14 PM

Barbarian
Considering it's the backbone of the class, I can't help but feel that Barbarians should be able to use Rage more often. Sure, 2-6 uses is...fine, and will probably get you through the adventuring day, but you still have to kind of ration it. Especially now that you can use Rage out of combat, you're going to blow through it very quickly indeed.

This is something I forgot to mention, but also gives me pause. I really like the additional rage utility, but especially at earlier levels, it's very costly expending a use of rage for a non-combat use.

Warlock. This one needs playtesting. Its a huge change, you can't look at an existing warlock and see how to translate them over easily because the changes are too big for that. My initial impression was negative but a rebuild of my current 6th level warlock actually looked fine with the new UA. I think a 1-20 rebuild of a decent character (not a crazy optimised thing, single classed decent warlock) will settle my thoughts on whether the new version works at all. There are definitely changes here I don't like such as tomelocks apparently not being able to scribe new spells into their book of shadows.

This is how I feel about Warlock as well. I'm going to have to actually play around with it to see how it shakes out.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 05:16 PM

Does anyone else think it's weird you can be a fiend pact Warlock who summons a celestial familiar?

As a matter of fact - no, it's not weird at all :smallsmile: Crawford and Todd talked about this explicitly in the devblog, i.e. now we have a new flavor of Warlock - the kind who gets their initial pact from one source, their Patron from another, and those two leaseholders/landlords may actually be at odds with one another and even vying for the Warlock's soul. And the Warlock themselves may or may not even care, because the one thing that matters most to Warlocks is obtaining power anywhere they can get it.

You can still play the old-school Warlock where you Patron is the lone source of everything you get (though they noted that for the Invocations, the 5e warlock doesn't actually specify those can only come from the same Patron that grants your subclass) - but this is a brand new expression of flavor that doesn't conflict with the 2014 version. I approve!

Right. I don't think you and I are going to get the warrior classes we want from this game. I just don't anymore. For the record, Crawford has said in the last two or three videos that:

1) Playing with these Masteries has been the most fun he's ever had playing a martial class. More than Tome of Battle. More than 4e. More than Superiority Dice in the final form and in the a bit more interesting Next Playtest where they refreshed every turn.

2) He's playing the Champion.

I'm pretty sure at this point what he wants and what I (and pardon me for assuming but I'm going to guess you as well) want are two diametrically opposed things.

If you were looking for Base Fighter or even Champion to be a Tome of Battle-esque class - no, that's never happening.

What you might get, if Battlemaster isn't enough of a maneuver system and they don't get around to this via splat, is a third-party taking a swing at it whom you/we can then support.

Yeah looks like it’s just making the terms and wording between classes more uniform. Now all spell casters prepare spells but sorcerers, warlocks and likely bards can only prepare new spells on level up.

Given that Bards have the school restriction we may end up with them still being able to swap as often as Wizards. After all, their power technically comes from study/rote memorization etc.

This is something I forgot to mention, but also gives me pause. I really like the additional rage utility, but especially at earlier levels, it's very costly expending a use of rage for a non-combat use.

It lasts up to 10 minutes now instead of 1, so "out of combat" use likely means having it still active after you put down some enemies.

Shadean207

2023-04-26, 05:19 PM

One thing that a buddy and I only noticed on second reading:

The Wizard's "Create Spell" doesn't cost Gold. It costs you an Arcane Focus worth several thousand Gold.
At that point, it seems much more up to the DM to grant a Wizard the items needed, and thus the ability of creating new spells.
Didn't see that being pointed out here up until now.

Also, I kinda get, can kinda guess why some of these abilities are spells now:
They made a point earlier on of distinctly separating "Magic Actions" from other action possibilities, like Attack, Dash, Study, ...
So this leaves as little room as possible for discussing whether or not an ability is "magic" or "an ability".
It looks a little weird, but made sense on second thought.

Some wordings though, need redoing.
For example, the "Scribe Spell" feature spell reads:
"As you magically scribe the spell, you must copy it from another spellbook or a Spell Scroll, or you must have it prepared. If you copy it from a Spell Scroll, the scroll is destroyed. If you have the spell prepared, the casting time and component costs are halved."
This could be read as "I copy a spell with a casting time of 10 minutes into the book, and since I had it prepared, its casting time is henceforth 5 minutes."
Which is silly, but an almost reasonable (mis)interpretation of the rules text here.

All in all, I am excited for the changes they are making, and looking forward to the next UA iterations.

Gignere

2023-04-26, 05:26 PM

Hurrashane

2023-04-26, 05:56 PM

Also I'd like to re-point out that you can't modify spells made with create spell. Modify spell required an Arcane spell, create spell changes the spell from Arcane to Wizard.

Nidgit

2023-04-26, 06:05 PM

I get what they're going for with Weapon Mastery and it's generally a good idea, but as someone else pointed out, in its current version here the optimal play is to rapidly switch between weapons on every attack. Which doesn't seem very fun. The simple fix seems to be to limit Weapon Masteries to one Property per useable turn, with the allowance for Fighters to use two per turn through Weapon Adept. They seem pretty cool otherwise.

Epic Boons continue to be typically deeply underwhelming, with the occasional outlier. In this case, Recovery and Night Spirit are dope, Energy Resistance is decent but needs the "half on a successful save" rider, and the rest are laughable.

Anyways, Barbarian looks excellent. Extra skills seems a bit odd on the Barbarian of all classes but it's a minor quibble. Berserker is a nice update, though I question how effective spending a full action on an AoE Frighten is when they're aren't any additional effects and immunity to fright is common in higher CR enemies.

Fighter's pretty good too. I've mentioned my Weapon Mastery thoughts above. The Action Surge nerf doesn't seem like a big deal- it really only prevents double-casting. Since you can still do whatever action normally before Action Surging it shouldn't affect various Fighter subclass abilities much. The buff to Indomitable is quite nice- only one use now but it offers a much better chance of success. And Unconquerable seems very cool too! The Champion is appropriately generic but seems to have lost its bits of dead weight.

In what's a recurring theme for this UA, I'm uncomfortable with tying class abilities firmly to spells, particularly when many of those spells aren't very good. Of the Sorcerer's new spells, Arcane Eruption seems quite good, Sorcerous Blast seems neat but still does less average damage than a d8 cantrip, Sorcerous Vitality is conditional at best, and I'm dubious that Sorcery Incarnate's effects are worth the spell slot and the concentration. They mostly feel like a distraction that makes your Sorcerer less different from other Sorcerers. But hey, at least Sorcerous Restoration is functional now and Arcane Apotheosis looks absolutely broken. Nice for Sorcerers to have something to look forward to at high levels.

Metamagic is a mixed bag. Most got buffed- in particular, Heightened Spell went from costly and rarely used to incredible for Hold spells or things like Contagion. Extended Spell and Careful Spell got nice buffs too. But Twinned Spell was nerfed down into borderline unusable. I think a better option of what they're going for would be to allow the Twinned Spell discount to apply to any repeat spell cast since your last Rest. Alternatively, just make Twinned Spell consume a second spell slot!

Draconic Sorcerer has good and bad. The low level stuff is nice: a boost to AC and no-cost resistance. Draconic Exhalation seems very likely to slow down the game and looks hardly worth it for the damage, though at least it's at-will. And Dragon Wings requires that you burn a 5th level spell slot and your concentration to fly! Terrible! The addition of the flat AoE is neat and clearly tries to copy the Paladin's capstone transformation but I find it really difficult to justify.

The Warlock is a goddamn mess. Half-casting progression, Mystic Arcanum Invocation Tax, Hex nerf, terrible Hex-based capstone. The list goes on. They barely touched the Fiend Patron so at least that's still fine. But yuck.

The Create/Modify/Scribe Spell aspect of the Wizard is going to get all the attention, and rightfully so, but what I hate about it is that it feels like a gold sink to upgrade spells. The Wizard isn't modifying something for new usage or creating a truly new spell, they're paying 3K gold to slap a shiny golden border on the label to make Better Hypnotic Pattern TM. It's not at all interesting. It's boring and overpowered, the signature move of WotC's Wizard.

(Also, Memorize Spell is rather steep as a 3rd level spell just to be able to spend another spell slot. I'd rather it be a proficiency-per-day thing or make it a unique up casting on the fly.)

Nagog

2023-04-26, 06:46 PM

I've lost all faith in WoTC to produce a quality system at this point.

Warlock is shot to hell, and the worst part of it is their perception and reactions are entirely based off of WoTC's last failure with the Warlock: The Hexblade.

Moving Patrons to 3rd level: Crawford specifically states that they moved patrons to 3rd level (which makes 0 sense narratively, literally "I've sold my soul to something or someone in exchange for powers, but they haven't agreed to the deal yet but they're totally chill with me having those powers now") because the team felt Warlocks did not have enough solo class flavor outside of subclass flavor. Consider the fact that Hexadin and Pallock are two entirely different terms that refer to two entirely different builds. The only difference is one of them is a Hexblade rather than literally any other patron.

"Warlocks need a nerf": Hexblade is more powerful than any other Patron (the closest contender likely being Undead, but it's not exactly close).

The biggest twist of the knife is that the feedback survey on the UA Hexblade was pretty clear in showing that it was way over powered, and in response they tweaked the one feature it had that wasn't balls to the wall insane.

So, yeah... I'm not looking forward to OneD&D, primarily because it means 5e won't be getting any new official content from here on out.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 07:03 PM

Warlock is shot to hell, and the worst part of it is their perception and reactions are entirely based off of WoTC's last failure with the Warlock: The Hexblade.

I'm assuming you'll give more details to your concerns, but this seems hyperbole at its finest.

Moving Patrons to 3rd level: Crawford specifically states that they moved patrons to 3rd level (which makes 0 sense narratively, literally "I've sold my soul to something or someone in exchange for powers, but they haven't agreed to the deal yet but they're totally chill with me having those powers now")

It makes plenty of sense, because in 5e you already did your deal and are 100% done with your patron if you want to be. This is bringing them in line with how everyone PLAYS them by having your patron involved. PS, you pick your Patron at level 1. Per the actual document "You determine the identity of the entity and choose its plane of existence, such as the Feywild, the Shadowfell, or an Outer Plane" It's at level 3 that you are beginning to learn things unique to your path with your patron. Just like a Cleric of Corellon gets to level 3 and chooses Magic, Forge, etc for their focus, a Warlock of Uk'otoa gets to level 3 and chooses if they're a hexblade or fathomless or great old one. The only limitation here is the one you're putt

"Warlocks need a nerf": Hexblade is more powerful than any other Patron (the closest contender likely being Undead, but it's not exactly close).

Genie is pretty vicious, so is Fathomless.

The biggest twist of the knife is that the feedback survey on the UA Hexblade was pretty clear in showing that it was way over powered, and in response they tweaked the one feature it had that wasn't balls to the wall insane.

What do you mean? We haven't seen the rebuild of the Hexblade yet, only the base Warlock and Fiend.

And one thing from page 1 I wanted to address (Not to you, just in general).

Warlocks are pretty hosed. Not only did they lose pact magic for half caster crap, but they end up with fewer overall invocations b/c they have to buy back their mystic arcanum slots. They also got functionally useless features including hex/hexmaster, and appear to have lost quite a few eldritch invocations (improved pact of the blade for instance).

Hard disagree, I'm not sure on the half caster, will have to see. It is "weaker" but we'll see if it affects over all. But no, they don't really have "fewer", because a lot of the Boon Taxes are gone. TomeLocks no longer need to buy Book of Ancient Secrets and you can trade out Agonizing Blast at level 5. Chainlocks no longer need to buy Investment of the Chain Master or Voice of the Chain Master. Blacklocks don't need Lifedrinker or Thirsting Blade. So really, you have the same number of Invocations and the way Mystic Arcanum was rewrote improves on and replaces 7 old Invocations.

Dienekes

2023-04-26, 07:40 PM

Does anyone else think it's weird you can be a fiend pact Warlock who summons a celestial familiar?

Yeah, I find it pretty silly. Reeks of rationalizing to get the mechanics they want rather than letting the mechanics follow through from the premise of the class.

I get what they're going for with Weapon Mastery and it's generally a good idea, but as someone else pointed out, in its current version here the optimal play is to rapidly switch between weapons on every attack. Which doesn't seem very fun. The simple fix seems to be to limit Weapon Masteries to one Property per useable turn, with the allowance for Fighters to use two per turn through Weapon Adept. They seem pretty cool otherwise.

Yes that will be optimal play until magic weapons and attunement get involved. I’m of two minds on it. On the one hand having those options seems fun. It’s closer to what I want to play. On the other, the juggling is a bit silly. Swapping weapons to deal with specific opponents is actually something that I think would be cool to implement. Having your standard rotation of attacks me swap to Topple weapon, attack get knockdown, swap to cleave weapon. Attack. Get it’s one prock. Repeat every single turn, feels pretty artificial.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 07:52 PM

Yeah, I find it pretty silly. Reeks of rationalizing to get the mechanics they want rather than letting the mechanics follow through from the premise of the class.

You mean like the 5e Chainlock that could pick Imp, Pseudodragon, Quasit or Sprite regardless of your Patron? Exactly why are we critiquing something that's not a change? If you want to limit things at your table based on Alignment, go for it. But the game tries not to do those things.

Yes that will be optimal play until magic weapons and attunement get involved. I’m of two minds on it. On the one hand having those options seems fun. It’s closer to what I want to play. On the other, the juggling is a bit silly. Swapping weapons to deal with specific opponents is actually something that I think would be cool to implement. Having your standard rotation of attacks me swap to Topple weapon, attack get knockdown, swap to cleave weapon. Attack. Get it’s one prock. Repeat every single turn, feels pretty artificial.

Do the rules allow that? Last I checked drawing or putting away a weapon is kind of a once a turn free action sort of thing. So you could switch weapons once per round, or toss your weapons on the ground.

Schwann145

2023-04-26, 07:56 PM

I see a lot of little adjustments that I really like, but I think overall this is a very poor UA:

In general:
•Trident damage adjustment may be the greatest change in this whole playtest document, IMO. The fact that it took them a decade to fix this is shocking!
•We fixed dual-wielding last time, just to break it again this time? BOOO.
•As I've said elsewhere, Weapon Masteries should absolutely not be gated behind class features or feats. Weapons are tools and choosing the right tool for the job is part of weapon selection. The abilities should be inherently available on the weapon(s), and the class abilities should be where "making X tool good at a different job" (ie: mixing and matching) comes into play.
•Weapon Masteries con't: The fact that you're limited to only a few specific weapon types, even for the martials, is so much more disappointing than I was expecting, and my expectations were already low.
•Dual Wielding: As Nick reads now, the fact that you can't replicate the most famous and obvious dual-wielding styles (ie: Rapier/Dagger or Longsword/Shortsword, etc) is a pretty staggeringly obvious miss.
•I'm surprised to find I agree with all the marked school changes for the listed spells. Usually they get this wrong more than right, but they did 100% good here, IMO.
•They're tripling down on turning abilities into spells. I hate it. I hate it so much.
•5e has been absolutely missing a "spell crafting" system, but this isn't how it should be done. Creating new spells should be a whole thing, not just a spell you cast (if you're specifically a Wizard - no one else can ever create a new spell?).
•Generic Creature Statblocks continue to disappointingly remove unique and flavorful abilities from creatures they're meant to emulate. Pact Familiar now falls prey to this trap. A shame.
•Epic Boons are starting to look a lot more reasonable as Capstone replacements. We might not quite be there but we're much closer than in previous UAs.

Barbarian:
•The core problems with Barbarian haven't changed: It's too reliant on Rage, and Rage is too limited in availability. Rage needs to be available to use far more often, especially now that it has out-of-combat utility (some of which is beyond silly! Str-based Stealth? What??). We're putting bandaids on broken bones here - until this fundamental issue is addressed, nothing else matters and the class will continue to be a disappointment.
•I don't hate that using Rage requires a little more tactical thought than it did before. I'm sure some people will disagree and say it's a nerf that it no longer lasts a minute without refreshing, but more tactical thought is sorely lacking in 5e gameplay, so I think it's fine.
•Brutal Critical, the most disappointing ability in the game... gets (mostly) nerfed. Ouch! WTF WotC?
•Relentless Rage is a good change.
•Rage Resurgence is both too little and too late.
•Path of the Berserker: Hurray! The subclass that used to be "toss-in-the-bin-and-light-it-on-fire" bad is now actually playable! Probably still an under-performer, but that's a huge step up regardless!

Fighter:
•Not much really changes for Fighter. Disappointment with Weapon Mastery already noted, so we'll skip that.
•Adding Persuasion to the class list is good. Characters need more skill access in general, IMO.
•More uses of Second Wind is good.
•Action Surge is gonna piss some people off, but it's fine. Dipping Fighter to cast more spells is gaming the system in what I consider a gross way, and this nixes that entirely. Losing out on any "interaction" actions, however, is a noticeable nerf and one I hope they reconsider.
•Weapon Expert: A way to swap boring or useless Masteries with less-boring or more useful ones. Technically good, but I still hate the system.
•Indomitable gets a pretty massive buff. Fighters have been stuck with a weakness to mental effects because of how stats work ever since 3rd edition, so this is a nice way to get a bonus in overcoming big issues like Dominate effects a few times a day.
•Weapon Adept: If anyone's gonna manipulate weapon keywords, it should be the Fighter, so I'm good with this in a vacuum.
•Champion remains incredibly boring and (seemingly, at least) mathematically sound. Adaptable Victor stands out as just the saddest attempt at including some non-combat utility though; they should be able to come up with something more clever and useful than this.

(*Note before Spellcasters - Every single instance of a class ability changing into a class-restricted spell is heavily disagreed with on principle alone, regardless of individual effects.*)
Sorcerer:
•How are we gonna square the hole that is a Sorcerer getting their power from their very bloodline and it being weird to have to wait until 3rd level for it? Easy! We're just gonna totally ignore that the issue exists at all! Don't need to answer for a problem if we just pretend it doesn't exist! ...
•Sorcerer seems to be getting free access to, "Omg, So Random!" the spells. Very fitting for something like Wild Magic. Very off-theme for literally anything else.
•Increasing Spells Prepared (aka: Known) to 22 from 15 is one of those, "about damn time!" decisions. Kudos.
•Sorcerous Vitality*: I actually like the direction of Sorcerer being more "hearty" than other casters, so this effect is a nice addition.
•Arcane Eruption/Sorcery Incarnate*: Like Vitality, it's nice to have a more "raw arcane power" option other than only rote spells like a Bard or Wizard would rely on.*
* - In these exception, they feel fine as spell slot-ins, since tapping into your innate magical power should come at the cost of... your innate magical power.
•Metamagic: Wow, Twinned got obliterated. Hot damn... Otherwise, the reduced cost of Heightened is good and the small tweaks here and there are fine. I do think Additional Metamagic comes too late at level 13 though.
•Sorcerous Restoration feels much better! Good change here.
•Arcane Apotheosis is insane. Wish shouldn't be a class spell in the first place, and Sorcerer gets it not only for free, but improved, and with zero chance of ever losing it no matter the wish?? In. Sane.
•Draconic Sorcery seems fine. Tweaks here and there but nothing that really fundamentally changes it, or it's placement in a quality list.

Warlock:
•So... every Warlock, that can be, will be Wis-based now, I suppose. You'd be kinda dumb not to, unless you specifically want to be the party "face." Intelligence is a neat thematic option, but it's continued patheticness as a stat keeps it a really poor choice.
•No more need to dip Hexblade is a huge win, IMO. Just make the Pacts do the lifting they should have been doing all along. Good call. (Really dumb that they're all class-unique spells that you can only ever learn one of though...)
•Replacing Pact Magic with Half-Casting is such a huge mistake. Warlock is the one escape from the leveled casting and now it's not? Yes, people want more spell use in general (this is a "Mage" class that felt bad using it's slots! Duh), but all you had to do was slightly increase the available slots. Trashing the whole system is a terrible solution.
•Making Mystic Arcanum into an Invocation choice is just... cruel, really. Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum were absolutely fine and didn't need fundamental changes. Again, just a few more usable slots.
•Contact Patron is either good or horribly horribly bad, depending on your patron. It makes a lot of sense for patrons you want a relationship with (Celestial, Fey, even Fiend) but makes absolutely zero sense with patrons you never ever want the attention of (Old Ones, etc).
•Hex remains disappointing, and doubling-down on it doesn't make it less disappointing.
•Isn't giving every Warlock access to Medium Armor "to better support Warlocks that walk a melee-oriented path" really just a backhanded way of admitting that Light Armor just doesn't cut it?

Wizard:
•Requiring the casting of a spell... in order to scribe a spell... is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in ttrp gaming.
•Basically, nothing much to say about Wizards. They got buffed. (Really?!) Their late level abilities come earlier because of the change to capstones and they gain a convoluted way to permanently metamagic their spells. They seem to continue to step all over Sorcerer themes as well as lack any restriction(s) to their own themes. Wizards need big changes and, frankly, they'll never get them. Sacred Cows and all that...
•Academic is another buff, but frankly a necessary one. It's no Expertise, but too long have the Sages been embarrassed by Rogues in their ability to study and recall arcane lore!
•Evoker: Potent Cantrip seriously needed the buff, so that's good. Otherwise, nothing really to say.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-04-26, 08:00 PM

I heartily agree with the "why in the world is that a spell?" concerns.

And buffing wizards? Did they nerf the heck out of spells and not tell anyone? Otherwise....yeah.

And weapon masteries? They took the most boring possible route, for mostly inconsequential effects. And it'll quickly just be "ok, I do my two standard things, in the same order, just with fiction-hostile weapon switching, some added bookkeeping, and some small riders.

Everything they put out makes my decision to pass on this "edition" firmer. And lowers my opinion of WotC's design staff. Or, a bit more politely, reveals that their vision for the game and my vision for the game have irreducible differences.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 08:08 PM

I agree that weapon-juggling, or at least the naked advantages of such, should be curtailed in some way.
Brutal Critical was buffed, not nerfed.

You mean like the 5e Chainlock that could pick Imp, Pseudodragon, Quasit or Sprite regardless of your Patron? Exactly why are we critiquing something that's not a change? If you want to limit things at your table based on Alignment, go for it. But the game tries not to do those things.

This, and now there's an actual explanation for it with the "1st pact doesn't have to be with your Patron" fluff.

Dienekes

2023-04-26, 08:10 PM

Do the rules allow that? Last I checked drawing or putting away a weapon is kind of a once a turn free action sort of thing. So you could switch weapons once per round, or toss your weapons on the ground.

Nope. From the UA, actually several back now, but returning in this one:

EQUIPPING AND UNEQUIPPING WEAPONS
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.

Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.

So when you make an attack using the attack action you can equip or uniquip one weapon before or after, and that is along with the one free item interaction. Which takes some finagling but you can make two different weapon attacks between your two attacks I think roughly every other turn.

Now, honestly that is a good change. It makes drawing two weapons, weapon and shield, and thrown weapons to actually function without handwaving on turn 1. But it does make things a bit funky here.

Kane0

2023-04-26, 08:15 PM

50 pages, that’s quite a pile. This might take a bit.

Weapon qualities:
Light weapons only get the extra attack without a BA. That’s fine.
Thrown weapons can be drawn as part of attacking. Finally!
Mastery traits look like cantrip riders for weapons. Some are better than others, but let’s see how it plays out
Net is special adventuring gear, which replaces an attack much like a shove does. Works for me, but raises the question of using other gear such as caltrops and alchemist fire in the same manner

Spells
We still have generic lists, but now each class will also get their own spells as well. So we’re back to class spell lists, but now with extra steps. You tried guys, this direction is just not working.
Nice to see Sorcs get something unique though. Arcane Eruption is cool, Sorcerous Burst in tier 1 is a trap, Sorcerous Vitality is meh. Sorcery Incarnate sounds like a class feature hiding as a spell, which brings me to…
Again, we are falling into ‘everything is a spell’ territory. Creating a spell is a spell. Scribing a spell is a spell. Preparing a spell is a spell. Metamagic Modifying a spell is a spell. Your pact boon is a spell. These are basic mechanics and class features, they have no right being spells. Stop.

Feats
The more I see prerequisites of certain categories in these epic boons, the more annoyed I get. Just trash them, there’s no reason a level 20 EK fighter shouldn’t be able to choose the Boon of Travel, a Tiefling the boon of Energy resistance, a Monk the boon of blindsight or a bladesinger the boon of speed. Ditch the group restrictions, it serves no purpose.

Design notes
Oh my god thankyou! This goes a long way to avoid us trying to guess what you’re thinking and why you’re doing the things you are.

Barbarian
Rage is still blocked by heavy armor for no reason. Otherwise, all positive changes though I’d change the refreshes to short rest myself.
Weapon mastery is limited to a few weapons, boo.
Primal Knowledge is great, and another reason I’d like to see Rage become short-rest based to encourage that out-of-combat usage.
Feral Instinct is a good consolidation
Indomitable Might got a buff when used with Primal Knowledge, thumbs up
Brutal Critical is a great improvement, I wonder where they got that one from…
Berserker is great all around really, except for the number of uses Intimidating Presence has before it starts eating into your Rages

Fighter
Second Wind no longer short rest based. Sad, but is an improvement I guess.
Weapon mastery is limited to a few weapons, boo.
Action Surge now limits what sort of actions you can take. I don’t think that was necessary, especially since this screws over taunters, EKs and even fighters that pick up interesting magic items.
Weapon Expert is disappointing. You can already swap around the properties by just… swapping weapons, how about letting the fighter simply apply a second applicable property at the same time?
Indomitable gets a significant boost, but still only once per long rest bites. Please change to short rest recharge.
Weapon Adept should just be called Weapon Master, and is even more disappointing. Remember how at level 7 I suggested simply letting you use two properties at once? You don’t even get that at level 13, you still have to choose one or the other. Its really, really not that impressive guys.
Unconquerable is OK I guess? I don’t see why it has to only be usable after you’ve used your Indomitable
Champion is like Berserker an improvement all-round, though level 10 is perhaps still a bit meh.

Sorcerer
Spells prepared is once again separate from spell slots, huzzah!
We still have long rest spell slots, and long rest sorcery points, both used only for magic and can be converted between each other. Golden opportunity to make the jump to a single pool of spell points right here!
Extra metamagic at level 2, and three more at level 13. That’s fine
Your capstone is just Wish. OK.
Metamagic changes as stated by dev notes are all thumbs up, however A) Seeking is still too expensive though, B) extended isn’t tied to Sorc level like Distant is and C) Twinned Spell should probably be renamed to Repeat Spell
Draconic like Berserker and Champion is improved across the board, however I’d definitely extend the level 10 exhalation to also apply to Chaos Bolt too

Warlock
Boon at level 1 and picking casting stat is great
Spells prepared is once again separate from spell slots, huzzah!
Pact magic is gone, replaced with standard long rest slot halfcasting. I’m sorry what? Nope. No thank you, and the horse you rode in on. I cannot stress enough how much I DO NOT WANT the only and sole alternate method of magic and spellcasting to be removed. You lot should be coming up with more, different ways to express magic/spellcasting and this is exactly the opposite.
You get slightly more invocations but lose those 6+ spells. I don’t mind this honestly.
Contact Patron is neat and makes sense
At-Will Hex is you’re capstone, meh
Invocations I broadly approve of
Fiend Patron follows the trend with other subclasses thus far, good stuff all over

Wizard
Spells prepared is once again separate from spell slots, huzzah!
Academic is neat, I like it
Arcane Recovery still operates on a short rest, thank goodness. I hate watching this trend of short rests getting sidelined
All of those bonus spells you learn at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are just class features. They don’t need to be spells at all, just have them be features.
Spell mastery and signature spells are still there and still good
Evoker is fine. No big impressive improvements like the other subclasses but it was already pretty good.

Glossary (changelog only)
Nothing really to note here, but I’m happy to see influence being iterated rather than dumped. I think the default DC is a bit high, however.

Overall
Pleasantly surprised. There isn’t anything earthshattering here but its good stuff, polishing and improving things I’d be happy to pick up and use at my table apart from one glaring, odious exception.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 08:20 PM

Had not noticed that, thank you.

While I agree it's a weird visual I think it'll just fit with all the other things where Mechanics CAN break fluff but I doubt most tables will do so.

Schwann145

2023-04-26, 08:30 PM

Brutal Critical was buffed, not nerfed.
Debatable. If you're using d6 or d8 weapons, it's likely a buff. If you're using d10 or d12 weapons, it's likely a nerf. And class design pushes most Barbs to use those bigger weapons more often than not.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 08:42 PM

Debatable. If you're using d6 or d8 weapons, it's likely a buff. If you're using d10 or d12 weapons, it's likely a nerf. And class design pushes most Barbs to use those bigger weapons more often than not.

Even with a d12 weapon, new Brutal Critical is still ahead at 11th level, the same at 13th level, and behind by 2 points at 17th level. (Note that means the new one is ahead from 11-16.) It then catches back up at 19th and beats it again at 20th.

For all other weapon damage dice, New Brutal Critical is ahead from 11-20.

Dienekes

2023-04-26, 08:44 PM

Debatable. If you're using d6 or d8 weapons, it's likely a buff. If you're using d10 or d12 weapons, it's likely a nerf. And class design pushes most Barbs to use those bigger weapons more often than not.

Ehh. Old version with a d12 weapon, that's an average of 6.5 at 9th level, 13 at 13, and 19.5 at 17.

New version is obviously nonexistent at 9. But at 11 it's greater than the old, equal at level 13, greater from levels 14-16, weaker 17-19, better at 20. Considering the rarity of even getting to play at levels 17-20, I think it's fair to say that the new version is better.

Schwann145

2023-04-26, 08:48 PM

Sure, but you can't just assume averages. Besides, rolling dice for damage is part of the fun of the game. Sure, you might come up shorter, but when you hit for 36 extra points of damage, that feels so much better than a flat value every time.

Regardless, it's still a terrible ability that only happens 5% of the time. :smalltongue:

Kane0

2023-04-26, 08:50 PM

I would absolutely prefer to add my Barb level to a crit over an extra die, and this Brutal Critical doesn't eat up three level's worth of features.
If you wanted barbarians to be the crit + dice rolling kings, you could have made their crit damage rolls exploding dice.

Rafaelfras

2023-04-26, 09:01 PM

50 pages, that’s quite a pile. This might take a bit.

Boon at level 1 and picking casting stat is great
Spells prepared is once again separate from spell slots, huzzah!
Pact magic is gone, replaced with standard long rest slot halfcasting. I’m sorry what? Nope. No thank you, and the horse you rode in on. I cannot stress enough how much I DO NOT WANT the only and sole alternate method of magic and spellcasting to be removed. You lot should be coming up with more, different ways to express magic/spellcasting and this is exactly the opposite.
You get slightly more invocations but lose those 6+ spells. I don’t mind this honestly.
Contact Patron is neat and makes sense
At-Will Hex is you’re capstone, meh
Invocations I broadly approve of
Fiend Patron follows the trend with other subclasses thus far, good stuff all over

My group warlock did not like those changes too. I do think they should keep pact magic a it was. As you pointed out it brings variety and thats a good thing. A spell slot or two more would be enough.
Also mystic arcanun as a invocation make it almost mandatory, there is nothing there that can compete with 9th level spells, so that should stay as it was

Psyren

2023-04-26, 09:02 PM

Sure, but you can't just assume averages. Besides, rolling dice for damage is part of the fun of the game. Sure, you might come up shorter, but when you hit for 36 extra points of damage, that feels so much better than a flat value every time.

You can also roll 1s, which feels terrible compared to a flat value. That's why averages are the best thing to consider.

Regardless, it's still a terrible ability that only happens 5% of the time. :smalltongue:

*shrug*

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 09:28 PM

PS, you pick your Patron at level 1. Per the actual document "You determine the identity of the entity and choose its plane of existence, such as the Feywild, the Shadowfell, or an Outer Plane" It's at level 3 that you are beginning to learn things unique to your path with your patron. Just like a Cleric of Corellon gets to level 3 and chooses Magic, Forge, etc for their focus, a Warlock of Uk'otoa gets to level 3 and chooses if they're a hexblade or fathomless or great old one.

The "entity" in that quote is the lesser one with whom you make your level 1 Pact. You don't pick the more powerful Patron until level 3. It can be that the level 3 Patron was pulling the strings all along, or it could be a completely unrelated Patron.

Hurrashane

2023-04-26, 09:28 PM

Didn't scribing a scroll used to use a spell as well? Pretty sure in like, 3.5 you needed to cast the spell as part of making a scroll, same as with a wand you needed to cast it 50 times or something.

Like, all that's changed is which spell you're casting in that sense. And I for one am perfectly fine with a magical ritual needed to scribe a scroll. Like, you're trapping magic in ink and parchment it should be more magical than just writing it down.

Hurrashane

2023-04-26, 09:32 PM

The "entity" in that quote is the lesser one with whom you make your level 1 Pact. You don't pick the more powerful Patron until level 3. It can be that the level 3 Patron was pulling the strings all along, or it could be a completely unrelated Patron.

So like your first level pact could be with an imp, or lesser fiend, who was scouring the material plane for likely candidates. Found one, then they get moved up to the boss's notice now that they're stronger. Or some other patron notices this go down so they interfere.

Lot of good narrative to be told with this stuff

Psyren

2023-04-26, 09:39 PM

So like your first level pact could be with an imp, or lesser fiend, who was scouring the material plane for likely candidates. Found one, then they get moved up to the boss's notice now that they're stronger. Or some other patron notices this go down so they interfere.

Lot of good narrative to be told with this stuff

Exactly, I'm excited. Both can be the same patron or different ones. They might be opposed or working together through you. They may not even be completely aware of each other. Hooks hooks hooks!

Sparky McDibben

2023-04-26, 09:42 PM

That's typically been the exact opposite of me (preferring Sorcerer over Wizard), but you may be delighted to know that I've got myself a wizard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654623-Convince-me-to-play-a-Wizard-(HotDQ-tRoT)) prepared to run soon!

Also, welcome back friend!

Oh, sweet! Kudos, friend!

Boverk

2023-04-26, 09:42 PM

So like your first level pact could be with an imp, or lesser fiend, who was scouring the material plane for likely candidates. Found one, then they get moved up to the boss's notice now that they're stronger. Or some other patron notices this go down so they interfere.

Lot of good narrative to be told with this stuff

It can even be with your familiar if you took pact of the chain.

You could have your imp do a 1930s gangster accent and introduce you to the boss at level 3.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-26, 09:44 PM

So like your first level pact could be with an imp, or lesser fiend, who was scouring the material plane for likely candidates. Found one, then they get moved up to the boss's notice now that they're stronger. Or some other patron notices this go down so they interfere.

Lot of good narrative to be told with this stuff

An imp (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0624.html), you say? Leading up to the boss (or bosses? (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0632.html)), you say? Agreed, definitely some good narrative possibilities.

Dr.Samurai

2023-04-26, 09:49 PM

Right. I don't think you and I are going to get the warrior classes we want from this game. I just don't anymore.
I feel the same. This is like opening up your Christmas gift to find a stick with a bow on it lol.

For the record, Crawford has said in the last two or three videos that:

1) Playing with these Masteries has been the most fun he's ever had playing a martial class. More than Tome of Battle. More than 4e. More than Superiority Dice in the final form and in the a bit more interesting Next Playtest where they refreshed every turn.
There is no way to convince me that Crawford is not 1000% lying if he said that. It's unfathomable that these masteries are more enjoyable than ToB or 4E. Either one could do a ton more than these masteries.

Anyways, my thoughts (all on weapons or barbarian):

Barbarian Class

Rage - I'm generally okay with this. I like the extended duration, and I like that this appears to be more suited to out of combat use than before. But the uses per day are still way too limited for that. I would keep taking damage as extending the rage as that is thematic and makes sense. I do like that rage bonus damage works on any strength attack.

Unarmored Defense - No change. Too bad, would have liked it to work more like the monks, where it's based on their primary and dex.

Weapon Mastery - These are... okay. Nothing to write home about. I do really like Cleave, and the rage bonus damage can be added to that attack, so that's nice. To be clear, I like adding riders to attacks; combat is all about this type of stuff. But I don't think they should be gated behind weapon types, and it certainly isn't enough (in my opinion) to boost martials.

Primal Knowledge - The extra skill is good. I like the idea of using Strength for those skills, but I don't know why you need to be Raging. This is the sort of design that always has me scratching my head. The barbarian is mostly going to be locked out of using spells, which is the strongest system in the game. The Fey Wanderer Ranger just straight up adds their Wisdom mod to their Charisma skills. No strings attacked. Why not do something similar here? Having to expend a Rage use when you only have 2 is bonkers. I'd add more Rage uses or have them refresh on a Short Rest.

Reckless Attack - No change.

Feral Instinct - Not sure why this got nerfed. So Danger Sense moves to level 7, which is probably okay because Reckless is so strong at level 2 we probably don't need another feature. But losing immunity to Surprise and the Pounce from Tasha's sucks. Not sure why these needed to be removed. This makes the barbarian so clutch in dire situations and I feel it loses a lot of identity without these features.

Indomitable Might - Nice to see it moved to level 9. Combined with Primal Knowledge, the barbarian will make a good scout/navigator/intimidator.

Brutal Critical - Meh. I would have liked to see something a bit more inspired. The flat damage is probably better than risking low rolls on those d12s (always supremely disappointing to deal normal weapon damage when you "crit").

Persistent Rage is fine but doesn't seem needed. If you can use a bonus action to extend rage, why would you not?

Relentless Rage is fine.

Rage Resurgence - I mean... it's nice, but how are you supposed to be interacting with Primal Knowledge up until this point? I guess the idea is that 10 minutes is enough time to get multiple encounters or scout/navigate and also get an encounter? This seems like way too late at level 17.

Primal Champion - Why nerf this? The fighter is getting a 4th attack and the barbarian can only get +2 Str/Con? Needs more.

Berserker (Dr. Samurai prepares to defend this hill alone)

Frenzy - This needs to return to being a bonus action attack. Removing the exhaustion is great. Reverting this to bonus damage on 1 attack is EXTREMELY boring AND ALSO removes a tremendous amount of versatility from the Berserker. Making an attack as a bonus action is awesome, and it would also work well with Primal Knowledge, in that you can spot hidden foes as your action and still attack (and possible Cleave or other weapon masteries), or imagine a bugbear barbarian stealthing in combat while raging and still attacking with the bonus action. This change is so boring and limited; it's awful. Revert it back. Add in language that you can make the attack as part of the same bonus action to activate Rage, and then you're all set. If it's too strong at level 3, remove the ability score modifier from damage, then add it back at level 6. But this was a dynamic ability, and now it's just boring flat damage. I really hate this design. (I'm also not crazy about it requiring to use Reckless Attack, which seems like forcing the narrative. You're already Raging. It's not a deal breaker, but seems needless.)

Mindless Rage - This is fine.

Retaliation - I am okay with this at level 10. I think it should be changed to your reach, instead of just 5ft. I'm glad it still does not require you to be raging.

Intimidating Presence - Look how they massacred my boy. Not a fan. I get that it's all just one big giant buff, but it sucks. Once a day vs at-will is really bad, and having to use a Rage to do it again is awful. Capturing enemies within 30ft is great, but they get to save at the end of each of their turns, which sucks. Currently, you actually have an Intimidating Presence at-will, so long as you use the Action to activate it. That means in social encounters, the barbarian can be standing behind the party face, looking like someone you don't want to bump into in a dark alley, and if he imposes the Frightened condition on the target, they now have Disadvantage on any skills checks, the most relevant ones being Deception (for lying to the party), Insight (for catching the party's lies), and Perception (for noticing any Stealth or Sleight of Hand occurring). I just love the image of the barbarian not saying a word, but still assisting the bard or paladin, and after the conversation is over with, the barbarian musses the target's hair and says "Good talk" and walks away lol. Now the barbarian is better with Intimidation through Primal Knowledge, which is great, but I really liked this way of indirectly assisting with social encounters. Even in combat the current version is better at locking an enemy down since you can use your Action to extend it, which is in line with how Rage now works. This new version is just a straight combat application, and sure, the DC is higher, but they get to save each turn. I don't know, this feels like losing a cool out of combat feature for a once/day aoe control effect which is fine, I guess, but leaves me feeling meh about it. Maybe it could have an in combat and out of combat use like the Swashbuckler's Panache?

All in all, I don't see anything that really makes me want to play through levels 10+, and some cool features were removed from the lower levels. Primal Knowledge is really interesting, but not sure how it will play out with the number of rages. Given that, again, the barbarian can't cast spells while raging, they seem awful shy of giving it more abilities at higher levels.

Also... what in the world happened to Fighting Styles? I thought Warriors were supposed to get that? I guess that got supplanted by Weapon Mastery? So now Barbarians can't get a fighting style? I'd love to see a GWF style that adds your ability mod to Cleave. Surely barbarians have fighting styles right?

Anyways, some other stuff I like:

1. Thrown Weapons allowing you to draw them as you attack is a great QoL improvement.
2. Cleave is a strong, thematic ability.
3. The trident getting boosted is great.

Damon_Tor

2023-04-26, 10:03 PM

Dr.Samurai

2023-04-26, 10:10 PM

Isn't Vex stupidly strong? Shouldn't we set it on fire?

Theodoxus

2023-04-26, 10:11 PM

While I think the wording is odd, I think the 'class features as spells' aspect is the correct approach. If you made them abilities, how frequent would you let them work? Unlimited? Modified spell, with it's free cost, would allow you to completely rework every spell you had in ways that would allow the Wizard to truly be a Swiss army knife. Scry the enemy, know they're Cold vulnerable and within 10 minutes, you've modified every damaging spell of consequence to deal Cold damage. As a spell, even cast as a ritual, it would be less practical to do.

Create Spell, with it's 1000 gp cost per spell level, would be VERY costly to make Control Weather a ritual. I mean, sure, by 15th level, you might have the gold to blow on something like that, but is Control Weather really all that amazing? I'd also suspect in the final version, WotC might remember that Rituals have traditionally been limited to 6th level, so that will be noted in the spell.

The only ones that I personally think weird are the cantrips. Those seem better as unlimited class abilities, but it's mostly nomenclature at that point.

Regarding making Warlock a half caster, I too mourn the loss of a unique casting mechanic. I also agree that simply adding a 3rd slot at 5th level would be sufficient. Though it would allow throwing 9+ fireballs a day... something the Fiend can almost do in 5E... and I've never seen Fiend be particularly popular for it, so...

However, if instead of getting the half-caster slot progression, they received the full caster slot progression but just never got 6+ spells outside of Arcanum (Mystic or Invocation doesn't really matter to me), I think that would be a lot better. Being able to cast fly at 5th level (or Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, etc.) is pretty iconic to the class. Having to wait for 9th level is very much less so.

I am thinking of granting players the option to choose between pact magic and half-classing it.

Other things I'm definitely incorporating into my 5E games: The update to the Barbarian, though I'm keeping 'taking damage' as one thing that will keep Rage going. I've already made Rage recover on a short rest, a long time ago, and don't see any reason that would need to change. The updated Frenzy makes me very happy.

I am not overly enthusiastic about weapon mastery, but it's a decent start and should be pretty easy to expand upon from various OSR and other homebrew concepts, so I can see adding that in too, should my players be interested.

Sorcerers getting free Wish... lul broak sayz wut?

Psyren

2023-04-26, 10:41 PM

Isn't Vex stupidly strong? Shouldn't we set it on fire?

I'm not so sure. I think Topple might be stronger overall. Vex also seems to be on weaker weapons.

Kaviyd

2023-04-26, 10:45 PM

One thing that should be pointed out about Mystic Arcanum is that it enables the maximum spell level available to a warlock to keep up starting at 5th level (so making this invocation available at 3rd and 4th level with a maximum spell level of 2nd level would eliminate that low level hiccup in spell level availability). You can only cast that spell once per day, but we already knew that regaining spells on a short rest was going away.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 10:54 PM

Hilarious interaction, probably not intended - if the Wizard doesn't have Scribe Spell prepared and their spellbook is lost or destroyed, they're screwed - they can't make a new spellbook and therefore they're stuck with whatever they have prepared.

*cue all the Wizards taking Magic Initiate as their starting feat*

One thing that should be pointed out about Mystic Arcanum is that it enables the maximum spell level available to a warlock to keep up starting at 5th level (so making this invocation available at 3rd and 4th level with a maximum spell level of 2nd level would eliminate that low level hiccup in spell level availability). You can only cast that spell once per day, but we already knew that regaining spells on a short rest was going away.

It does let you keep up, which is nice... but getting each spell level as soon as a full caster can with it will cost 7 invocations!

Zevox

2023-04-26, 11:09 PM

Wow, warlock really got hit hard with that HOMOGENY stick. I dunno if it's worse or better mechanically because frankly I checked TF out while reading it. How f***ing boring.

I do not accept that people wanted this for the warlock. If they wanted a normal-ass spellcaster there are plenty. Classes SHOULD be different from one another. Or what's the goddamn point of having different classes?
Speaking for myself, part of it is what I'd want, part of it is not. I definitely want Warlocks to:
1) Have more spell slots.
2) Move away from being short rest dependant.

The former for obvious reasons, the latter because playing a class that wants to short rest much more often than most of the rest of the party feels bad, and short rests are long enough that it's not always easy to do one. This does achieve those two goals.

What I definitely don't want is for it to become a half-caster as a result. They are not a martial class, nor a gish class except when taking a specific pact option, they're a caster class, and should be focused on that. And something that they ditched that I don't think they needed to is them always casting spells at their highest possible level (max 5), but having fewer spell slots than other casters as a trade-off for that. That concept I'm okay with, the existing one just went way too low on the number of slots due to letting them recharge on a short rest.

Though, pie-in-the-sky, if I could have any changes I wanted to them, I'd actually most like them to go back to what they were in 3.5E. Meaning having very few spells known and never getting truly high-level spells, but having unlimited uses of the spells they do get. That would be more unique and interesting while still keeping them as focused casters. But I have no expectation that they'll do that, so I'd take just reworking them away from the short rest recharge/very few spell slots dynamic.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-26, 11:13 PM

Hilarious interaction, probably not intended - if the Wizard doesn't have Scribe Spell prepared and their spellbook is lost or destroyed, they're screwed - they can't make a new spellbook and therefore they're stuck with whatever they have prepared.

*cue all the Wizards taking Magic Initiate as their starting feat*

It does let you keep up, which is nice... but getting each spell level as soon as a full caster can with it will cost 7 invocations!

Scribe spell is fulfilling a pretty similar role to 3e's Read Magic, in that edition that spell was the only one you could prepare without a spellbook by default. I'd have to reread the entry on scribe spell in the UA, because I think it doesn't count for the preparation limit, so it's likely always prepared.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 11:15 PM

My group warlock did not like those changes too. I do think they should keep pact magic a it was. As you pointed out it brings variety and thats a good thing. A spell slot or two more would be enough.
Also mystic arcanun as a invocation make it almost mandatory, there is nothing there that can compete with 9th level spells, so that should stay as it was

I'm going to play test before I stress. Because the only real reason I'm flinching at the Half Caster is because it delays access to spell levels... But the Boons are more powerful across the board and once you hit level 5 Mystic Arcanum can let you fix the gap some. So it's a case of we'll see.

For the other, I don't think people are really taking into account what they gave us by making Mystic Arcanum an invocation.

First, as many have pointed out, we now have 9 invocations instead of 7. Now before anyone insists that we lose 4 old Arcanums making us be down by 2, keep in mind certain invocations that are no longer there, ones that were essentially taxes.

If you are a Tomelock, you don't need Book of Ancient Secrets anymore. What's better, at level 5 you no longer need Agonizing Blast. Book of Shadows at level 5 lets your add your Caster Stat to any Cantrip you don't already add it to.

If you're a Bladelock you no longer need to take Thirsting Blade or Improved Pact Weapon.

If you're a Chainlock Investment and Voice of the Chainmaster are both gone.

So ultimately you can have 4 Mystic Arcanums and the same essential Invocations without issue. Meanwhile Lessons of the First Ones is amazing at low levels for overall customization. Additionally you can start picking up Arcanums at level 5, helping close that gap we now have for 3rd-5th level spells, changing them out as we level up to the original.

Damon_Tor

2023-04-26, 11:18 PM

My thoughts on the fighter and barbarian I guess:

Barbarian changes look like two-weapon barbs will be the dpr meta. Brutal critical being decoupled from weapon size means you just want to maximize the number of attacks you get. Barbs don't need a novel source of advantage, so that means scimitars so they can leave their bonus action free I guess.

Once a fighter can freely mix and match mastery properties, the trident is strictly superior to other options. It's just as good as a longsword or battle-axe, but you can also throw it. Are tridents the default 1h weapon now? Is that intended? Weird.

Shenanigans with the light property: you don't have to actually be dual-wielding, you can have a shield in your off hand, throw a light weapon with your main hand, then draw a second light weapon with the main hand and toss it as your light-weapon attack. Intended?

Where is the monk?

And I got mad and stopped reading when I saw the warlock. So I'll have to revisit when I'm in a more tolerant mood.

Rafaelfras

2023-04-26, 11:21 PM

Scribe spell is fulfilling a pretty similar role to 3e's Read Magic, in that edition that spell was the only one you could prepare without a spellbook by default. I'd have to reread the entry on scribe spell in the UA, because I think it doesn't count for the preparation limit, so it's likely always prepared.

All wizard spells gained as a feature are always prepared.
Scribe, memorize, change and create spell don't count for the preparation limit and are always prepared

I'm going to play test before I stress. Because the only real reason I'm flinching at the Half Caster is because it delays access to spell levels... But the Boons are more powerful across the board and once you hit level 5 Mystic Arcanum can let you fix the gap some. So it's a case of we'll see.

For the other, I don't think people are really taking into account what they gave us by making Mystic Arcanum an invocation.

First, as many have pointed out, we now have 9 invocations instead of 7. Now before anyone insists that we lose 4 old Arcanums making us be down by 2, keep in mind certain invocations that are no longer there, ones that were essentially taxes.

If you are a Tomelock, you don't need Book of Ancient Secrets anymore. What's better, at level 5 you no longer need Agonizing Blast. Book of Shadows at level 5 lets your add your Caster Stat to any Cantrip you don't already add it to.

If you're a Bladelock you no longer need to take Thirsting Blade or Improved Pact Weapon.

If you're a Chainlock Investment and Voice of the Chainmaster are both gone.

So ultimately you can have 4 Mystic Arcanums and the same essential Invocations without issue. Meanwhile Lessons of the First Ones is amazing at low levels for overall customization. Additionally you can start picking up Arcanums at level 5, helping close that gap we now have for 3rd-5th level spells, changing them out as we level up to the original.

I went back and forth with my warlock player a lot and got to some of the same conclusions.
But I think his biggest grief was about the melee path, as you don't have any reason to take a warlock over a ranger or a paladin (he is also a spoiled hexblade so there is that too haha)

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 11:24 PM

It does let you keep up, which is nice... but getting each spell level as soon as a full caster can with it will cost 7 invocations!

It won't. You can change out an invocation every level. At level 5 I get my 3rd Level Once a Day, at 7 get your 4th. At 9th level you get your regular level 3 spells and trade you level 3 for your level 5, so on and so forth. You end up using 4 in total replicating the original Mystic Arcanum. Meanwhile You needing 2 less Invocations as a Pact Boon Tax means you're still on par if you wanted to just play it like a regular 5e warlock.

Psyren

2023-04-26, 11:27 PM

Scribe spell is fulfilling a pretty similar role to 3e's Read Magic, in that edition that spell was the only one you could prepare without a spellbook by default. I'd have to reread the entry on scribe spell in the UA, because I think it doesn't count for the preparation limit, so it's likely always prepared.

As written it's not - but I agree it should be, for exactly this reason.

My thoughts on the fighter and barbarian I guess:

Barbarian changes look like two-weapon barbs will be the dpr meta. Brutal critical being decoupled from weapon size means you just want to maximize the number of attacks you get. Barbs don't need a novel source of advantage, so that means scimitars so they can leave their bonus action free I guess.

Scimitarbarian looks to be pretty good now that you mention it.

Once a fighter can freely mix and match mastery properties, the trident is strictly superior to other options. It's just as good as a longsword or battle-axe, but you can also throw it. Are tridents the default 1h weapon now? Is that intended? Weird.

I dunno about strictly superior, you can't put Vex on it.

Where is the monk?

Later.

It won't. You can change out an invocation every level. At level 5 I get my 3rd Level Once a Day, at 7 get your 4th. At 9th level you get your regular level 3 spells and trade you level 3 for your level 5, so on and so forth. You end up using 4 in total replicating the original Mystic Arcanum. Meanwhile You needing 2 less Invocations as a Pact Boon Tax means you're still on par if you wanted to just play it like a regular 5e warlock.

Thanks for the breakdown. And I'm definitely in favor of the tax reductions.

Damon_Tor

2023-04-26, 11:28 PM

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-26, 11:28 PM

I went back and forth with my warlock player a lot and got to some of the same conclusions.
But I think his biggest grief was about the melee path, as you don't have any reason to take a warlock over a ranger or a paladin (he is also a spoiled hexblade so there is that too haha)

It's an amazing dip for all Wis or Cha based characters. Also, as mentioned above, the more I'm looking at it the more I'm realizing I can keep up on spells via Mystic Arcanum. Heck, it's not a great dip for a Ranger, Suddenly Ranger is SAD and only need a 14 Dex for AC.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-26, 11:55 PM

As written it's not - but I agree it should be, for exactly this reason.

You're right, currently you'd be left stuck with finding 2 scrolls of Scribe Spell* and use one of those to scribe the other on a blank book. Tbh... its not that bad, and makes losing the spellbook a problem, it may be ok th let the Wizard keep one of its weaknesses.

*likely the most readily available scroll though as its the cornerstone of every wizards repertoire.

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

The berserker now gets to do some bonus damage once per turn. How f***ing interesting. Bonus damage once per turn. How did they think of that wholly original idea? Did it come to them in a dream? We're they doing some serious mind-opening hallucinogens and go on a vision quest? Perhaps it was revealed to them by some deity, an act of divine inspiration. Only this could explain such a marvel of unique and creative game design mastery.

I have kinda the same feaaling with the playtest as a whole, for all they say "Don't call it 5.5, its not 5.5", it very much feels like the same edition with a couple adjustments, I'd have loved for them to move a little more outside of their comfort zone, if not in the playtest then when?

Kane0

2023-04-27, 12:01 AM

I'd have loved for them to move a little more outside of their comfort zone, if not in the playtest then when?

When we can't tell them how stupid their ideas are :P

Edit: Although honestly I think they should absolutely be trying to do the crazy stuff, and the best way to do that would be to split their playtest stuff into the 'polishing' stuff and the 'ideas against the wall' stuff. But hey, too much effort.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 12:12 AM

When we can't tell them how stupid their ideas are :P

Edit: Although honestly I think they should absolutely be trying to do the crazy stuff, and the best way to do that would be to split their playtest stuff into the 'polishing' stuff and the 'ideas against the wall' stuff. But hey, too much effort.

I'm not sure its lazyness, they decided to put the sidebars explaining their reasonings behind their choices which is very welcome, I think they just don't want to stray far from 5e, or were told not to stry too far from it, idk how the chain of command goes.

BerzerkerUnit

2023-04-27, 12:13 AM

I'll toss in the pile here that I don't think they really solved some of the issues with moving subclasses to level 3. Specifically, what does a level 1 celestial warlock or a level 1 aberrant mind sorcerer look like? In their current non-playtest iterations they strongly define the character from level 1; now, you don't even have to decide where your power comes from until level 3. Seems like a step back.

I've seen this sentiment repeated elsewhere and I understand where it comes from, but I'd like it if you imagine the following options:

1. A youth finds a magic blade in a half buried temple. It gives them purpose and the power to be a hero. After a few adventures with companions they are drawn to another temple, a darker place with a fiend waiting in the darkness "Welcome, my champion! Get ready, hee hee, there's much work for you to do..."

2. A princess is visited by a sprite that leads her out of the castle on what should be a quick jaunt, a brief diversion to escape the claustrophobia of her impending nuptials and dull responsibilities. She ends up discovering a knack for magic and finds herself friends to travel with. After a few weeks or months of drinking and gambling and adventuring, her fairy companions says "would you like to meet my boss? She can offer you true freedom..."

3. A failed wizard toils away in the college's library knowing he was meant for more, knowing that magic should be his birthright. Then by chance he finds a tome. Cover the color of ash, pages stained with ruddy fingerprints as if the one that wrote it were endlessly bleeding... this magic, eldritch and esoteric he could do. He sets off on a journey to learn the source of this old and aberrant magic, which leads him to a city just off the coast. Deep in the bowels of that fell metropolis sleeps a god that does not participate in the economy of faith. It is the power, and those that read the records of its dreams in journals kept by undead scribes and write their own names among the pages can call on ever more of that power...
____________________
This is, I believe, more of the classic fantasy of the Warlock. Classic warlock puts the making of the pact in the character's backstory, the new format allows the making of the pact to be a key element. In story 1 the hero finds out they've been lured in by a fiend, but what if they refuse to serve the fiend and turn away only to find a Celestial behind them that has waited 1000 years for someone that had the virtue necessary to refuse the fiend's offer and the Celestial offers to become the their patron instead, or they seek out eldritch lore that can get them out of the faustian bargain and by tattooing the cerulean sign on themselves they become a conduit to some alien thing instead.

I think the new subclass format offers better story telling. And there's no reason you couldn't just be a Asmodeus Cultist 138 and you get a promotion at 3rd level either.

Now all that said, the half-casting is garbage, the nerfs run rampant all over the newlock like a herd of buffalo stricken with diarrhea. I hate the loss of all 4 mystic arcanum for 1 more Invocation (technically 2 since your Pact Boon gets a free one baked in), but the versatility and power are both gone.

What's that you say? More spells known should mean more versatility? Not when you're a half caster baybeeee! You're just literally worse all the time, and none of your class features are as good as say a Paladin's so your loss of spellcasting potency is just a real kick in the junk.

Newlock is bad. If you're on the fence, take my word, it's bad. Loss of mechanical identity, mechanically weaker, more confusing, more bookkeeping. I dislike it greatly, it feels wildly out of line with the other types of changes we've seen. The decision to change pact magic for spell casting so you cast weaker spells more often is antithetical to what players were asking for when they said they wanted to be able to cast more spells. At levels 14+ 5th level slots and a few higher level 1/days are not so impactful that you need to nerf them to 4ths and a bunch of long rest recovered inconveniences.

At 9th level my warlock can currently make 3 pcs fly with a cast of a Fly spell, twice per short rest. Now I have to wait until 17th level to do it once unless I use a 1/day Mystic Arcanum (a thing I had to trade Repelling Blast or Investment of the Chain Master for). It's an all around downgrade across the entire spectrum of possible play.

This was such a disappointment.

Kane0

2023-04-27, 12:15 AM

I'm not sure its lazyness, they decided to put the sidebars explaining their reasonings behind their choices which is very welcome, I think they just don't want to stray far from 5e, or were told not to stry too far from it, idk how the chain of command goes.

Yes for 5.5 at least its almost entirely polish and grinding rough edges, I don't think UA has ever really pushed the boundaries that much compared to previous editions and 3rd party material. 5e just isn't a super adventurous edition in general.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 12:21 AM

At 9th level my warlock can currently make 3 pcs fly with a cast of a Fly spell, twice per short rest. Now I have to wait until 17th level to do it once unless I use a 1/day Mystic Arcanum (a thing I had to trade Repelling Blast or Investment of the Chain Master for). It's an all around downgrade across the entire spectrum of possible play.

This was such a disappointment.

But on the other hand you can burn 1st level slots on shield, which hurt like hell to a 9th level Warlock. They are much closer to a full caster progression than to a half caster one, the problem is that their uniqueness got taken away, so it's not really about it being a nerf or a buff* in my case, but about Warlock losing uniqueness.

*Now it doesn't feel like you need to dip some other caster for a few 1st level slots to burn on Shield or AE instead of paying a 4th or 5th slot for it, and your levels count towards spell slot progression, whether its better or worse will depend on the build in question.

Yes for 5.5 at least its almost entirely polish and grinding rough edges, I don't think UA has ever really pushed the boundaries that much compared to previous editions and 3rd party material. 5e just isn't a super adventurous edition in general.

Yeah, its a bit dissapointing, shame on me for giving them the benefit of the doubt :P

On a related note, I don't know if the announcement of CR's own system will impact the design decisions of WotC in regards to the new edition going forward, maybe feeling like they have "competition" can make them feel like they need to bring something new to the table.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 12:33 AM

Glancing at this... the Barbarian and Sorcerer seem pretty solid, Fighter seems alright, Wizard seems overloaded, and the Warlock... I'm not sure?

I feel like the Warlock isn't as nerfed as you'd think by the transition from pact magic to half caster, since most of their round-to-round power came from spamming Eldritch Blast anyway. Also, their features hide a surprising number of buffs:

Medium armor + variable casting stat is actually pretty dang solid.
Warlocks get two powerful cantrips (Eldritch Blast + their Pact Boon) and a middling 1st level spell at 1st level.
They get two-to-ten bonus spells known, and a free cast of one of them per long rest (so they effectively have an extra spell slot of the highest level).
They all effectively get two "free" Invocation from their Pact Boon (Bladelocks got Hex Warrior + Thirsting Blade, Chainlocks got Investment of the Chain Master and Voice of the Chain Master, and Tomelocks got Agonizing Blast and Book of Ancient Secrets).
Yeah, sure, they have to pay for their Mystical Arcana now... but they're also pulled from a way broader spell list than the original Warlock.

I'd have to see them in play, but that feels like a lot of tasty buffs squirreled away behind the scenes. That said, the Hex nerf hurts pretty badly from a raw damage perspective...

...

As for the others:

Barbarian
Primal Knowledge is hilarious and I love it. That's... pretty much it, honestly.

Fighter
Action Surge needed to be limited, so that was expected. Bonus Second Winds as the Fighter's resource of choice is an interesting choice, and I like the upgrade to Indomitable ("I pass five saves per long rest" is a cool defensive capstone), and feels appropriate.

The fact that you don't really get to customize your Weapon Masteries until 7th level, and don't get round-to-round flexibility until 13th is kinda disappointing, though. I also think that Weapon Adept is actually way more limited than it initially appears — there are only nine Masteries in total, and any given weapon only gets access to roughly half of them.

Sorcerer
The free spells are mostly just alright (though Sorcerous Burst seems like a surprisingly decent recipient of the Empower Spell metamagic), but Arcane Apotheosis is just downright hilarious. Yeah, sure, I'll take the once per long rest ability to pretend that I know every spell ever for a single cast as part of a class feature, that's just fine. I hope that'll make it out of playtesting, but I kinda doubt it. Sorcerous Restoration giving you sorcery points whenever you roll initiative is also an interesting (if uncreative) buff — use your short rest points to make a bunch of 1st or 2nd level spell slots and you'll still have sorcery points to burn whenever you get into a fight.

Wizard
I kinda like the new direction, thematically speaking... but I'm not a big fan of Scribe Spell/Modify Spell/Create Spell. I feel like creating a new spell should be a downtime activity (didn't they mention something about downtime being a bigger thing?), and Modify Spell feels excessive on the class with the largest number of known spells. Memorize Spell, on the other hand, is both cool and legitimately overpowered (as long as you have eleven minutes to spare, you effectively can treat the contents of your spellbook as your list of prepared spells).

The Wizard's problem is that it's really good at spellcasting, so there legitimately isn't room for a lot of the cool stuff that they should have access to (like Modify Spell/Create Spell) without it just being kinda excessive. You kinda can't have your most versatile spellcaster also be one of the top spellcasting classes in terms of staying power, especially if spellcasting is legitimately the most powerful/flexible part of the system already.

Zevox

2023-04-27, 12:38 AM

I'm not sure its lazyness, they decided to put the sidebars explaining their reasonings behind their choices which is very welcome, I think they just don't want to stray far from 5e, or were told not to stry too far from it, idk how the chain of command goes.
Clearly, yes. They have a very successful edition of the game in 5e, and don't want its follow up to have the same thing happen to it as happened with 4e. So they hew close to 5e's mold, call the new edition "backwards compatible" with 5e, and even refuse to technically call it a new edition (or even give it a proper name, if they are dropping the "One D&D" monikor). Playing it very safe for fear of getting burned again.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 12:53 AM

Wizard
I kinda like the new direction, thematically speaking... but I'm not a big fan of Scribe Spell/Modify Spell/Create Spell. I feel like creating a new spell should be a downtime activity (didn't they mention something about downtime being a bigger thing?), and Modify Spell feels excessive on the class with the largest number of known spells. Memorize Spell, on the other hand, is both cool and legitimately overpowered (as long as you have eleven minutes to spare, you effectively can treat the contents of your spellbook as your list of prepared spells).

It's not as OP as it may originally seem, IIRC when ritual casting its always at lowest level, so you only get to change 1 spell from your memorization, and a second casting of Memorize would "reset" your prepared list, and then make 1 change, effectively giving you an open preparation slot. If you need 2 different spells you don't have prepared you have to pay a 4th level slot to make that change, and if you later wanna use the ritual, those two you choose before are back to the spellbook and out of your mind.

The Wizard's problem is that it's really good at spellcasting, so there legitimately isn't room for a lot of the cool stuff that they should have access to (like Modify Spell/Create Spell) without it just being kinda excessive. You kinda can't have your most versatile spellcaster also be one of the top spellcasting classes in terms of staying power, especially if spellcasting is legitimately the most powerful/flexible part of the system already.

I Agree, but I think pursuing the idea is more important than achieving the balance, I want them to go this direction, and see how to balance it, maybe instead of two "free" spells wizards could get only 1 per level and 1 "modification" to one of their already existing spells, making initial access to the feature cheaper and reinforcing the themathic of "every wizard casts the same spell a lil different", without giving them a truckload of extra improved spells.

My point is that, even when it seems very powerful at this stage, I still think the idea of making wizards actually make their own spells goes a long way to fulfilling the fantasy. The implementation while not as bad as 3e's Epic Spells presents many of the similar problems, I find a spell in a spellbook is it a Wizard spell or an Arcane spell? How can the wizard tell? Narratively they are just finding a spell in a book that they don't yet understand and that has a given level of complexity, unless they all use the same method of modifying spell which "marks them" thus not really being the creation of a new spell, the Wizard / Arcana divide implies there's some higher tier thing that determines whether a spell is "natural" or not.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-04-27, 01:03 AM

My point is that, even when it seems very powerful at this stage, I still think the idea of making wizards actually make their own spells goes a long way to fulfilling the fantasy. The implementation while not as bad as 3e's Epic Spells presents many of the similar problems, I find a spell in a spellbook is it a Wizard spell or an Arcane spell? How can the wizard tell? Narratively they are just finding a spell in a book that they don't yet understand and that has a given level of complexity, unless they all use the same method of modifying spell which "marks them" thus not really being the creation of a new spell, the Wizard / Arcana divide implies there's some higher tier thing that determines whether a spell is "natural" or not.

This is my initial take to the "spell spells" as well. Spell creation/research is a mechanic I see asked for constantly and this reads to me like a reasonable attempt at it. Create Spell is not free, oh boy is it not free, it takes a particular spell component and quite a costly one at that.

I'm also pretty glad that it's not introduced as a downtime activity. You know a surefire way to have a downtime activity get ignored by the casual player? Make it take a long time. Anything longer than a week or two is liable to be glossed over with nary a glance back because when would we find the time for that sort of thing in our action packed adventure? Even if the group did choose to do this as a downtime activity, everyone who isn't the Wizard probably has next to nothing to do for that entire period.

Making it a spell, oddly, fixes the issue. When you want to do it, it will take you a day at most to prepare the correct spells to modify/create and then you can do it. The preperation, research and experimentation can be done organically in play. You earn the ability to fund this Create Spell during your adventure, you test out the type of spell you want to create during the adventure, you create the spell without stopping the adventure. I think we're getting a bit lost in the "Wizards get too much" weeds here, sure its strong but it's an actual thing that Wizards do now instead of just cast the best and most powerful spells. Your arcane research is an interactable feature now, not just something that happens.

Also, I would give all that up for the Sorcerer capstone, I mean have you seen that thing? Way to go WotC, finally a capstone worth aiming for. Where's that enthusiasm for the rest of them?

Arkhios

2023-04-27, 01:11 AM

Haven't had the time or patience to devour the whole file yet, but having discussed bits here and there with a friend, we realized there's one big flaw in this document: missing Table of Contents on a massive document such as this.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 01:39 AM

It's not as OP as it may originally seem, IIRC when ritual casting its always at lowest level, so you only get to change 1 spell from your memorization, and a second casting of Memorize would "reset" your prepared list, and then make 1 change, effectively giving you an open preparation slot. If you need 2 different spells you don't have prepared you have to pay a 4th level slot to make that change, and if you later wanna use the ritual, those two you choose before are back to the spellbook and out of your mind.

That's the thing, though — you're not using it to rewrite your whole list of spells prepared, you're using it to get the perfect spell for the occasion. The situations where you're going "aw man, I wish I had this one particular spell" are going to be more common than the ones where you go "aw man, I wish I had prepared these two spells".

Also, I'd normally agree with you about going "hang balance, focus on getting the class to feel right"... except the Wizard is already on the edge of what's reasonable, power-level-wise. And that's actually kinda against theme for the Wizard — they're supposed to have less raw power than the Cleric (who has an actual deity on their side) or the Sorcerer (who is magic), making up for it with their incredible versatility. The Cleric and Sorcerer have features that vaguely gesture in that direction (Divine Intervention, Arcane Apotheosis), but both come online so late.

If I had my druthers, Wizards would be full casters that "cap out" early unless you fully dedicate yourself to study (AKA are an NPC or are in a game with a ton of downtime), make questionable pacts, or sacrifice your (demi-)humanity in some way. In exchange, you've got your big book o' spells and the ability to tinker with them.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 01:45 AM

This is my initial take to the "spell spells" as well. Spell creation/research is a mechanic I see asked for constantly and this reads to me like a reasonable attempt at it. Create Spell is not free, oh boy is it not free, it takes a particular spell component and quite a costly one at that.

I'm also pretty glad that it's not introduced as a downtime activity. You know a surefire way to have a downtime activity get ignored by the casual player? Make it take a long time. Anything longer than a week or two is liable to be glossed over with nary a glance back because when would we find the time for that sort of thing in our action packed adventure? Even if the group did choose to do this as a downtime activity, everyone who isn't the Wizard probably has next to nothing to do for that entire period.

Making it a spell, oddly, fixes the issue. When you want to do it, it will take you a day at most to prepare the correct spells to modify/create and then you can do it. The preperation, research and experimentation can be done organically in play. You earn the ability to fund this Create Spell during your adventure, you test out the type of spell you want to create during the adventure, you create the spell without stopping the adventure. I think we're getting a bit lost in the "Wizards get too much" weeds here, sure its strong but it's an actual thing that Wizards do now instead of just cast the best and most powerful spells. Your arcane research is an interactable feature now, not just something that happens.

Also, I would give all that up for the Sorcerer capstone, I mean have you seen that thing? Way to go WotC, finally a capstone worth aiming for. Where's that enthusiasm for the rest of them?

Well, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather it took more than an afternoon to create a whole new spell, it took Karsus a whole decade to create Avatar, and while thats a 10th level spell, I think a week to make a brand new 1st level spell is kind of a bargain already.

I do agree that it can perfectly be weaved in the narrative and thus have the spells you add to your book from class levels actually be spells you craft yourself instead of picking 2 from the Arcana list. My group has used some custom spells in DnD, and many custom spells in other systems where creating spells (or rotes) has a bit more of a focus, like in Mage: The Awakening, and the narrative of experimenting can be made interesting and become the fuel for adventures ("I'm blocked in my research for this spell and need teeth of different types of dragons to test some stuff, guys I need you to help me hunt some dragons!")

GeneralVryth

2023-04-27, 01:47 AM

I like a lot of the ideas/direction/themes they are going for with this playtest, but some of the implementations need improvement.

I actually like using spells as meta-class features to an extent. Spells are mechanically a very well defined template in how they work and are excellent way to structure a class feature that is an entirely new ability (versus many features which just modify existing abilities) that you would like to use spell slots as a potential cost for.

I would need to re-read the weapon masteries to comment in detail (though I will call out that nick shouldn't be a mastery and the ability should just be built in to Two Weapon Fighting), but the concept is good they just need more. Two levels of masteries, potentially with the 2nd more powerful level (likely unlocked by someone who has the weapon's mastery and is level 9? 11? in the appropriate class), that could contain some more limited use active abilities would go a long way here.

The Barbarian changes all seem pretty good, would need to actually play-test to be sure of balance but continuing to go in this direction is ideal.

Fighters are gaining more of the identity they always lacked as weapon masters, which I think is great. This is unfortunately limited by the mastery system itself, so improvements there properly translated to Fighters would help. In general they just need more. I do like the indomitable change, though I have traditionally been in the camp of just renaming it Legendary Resistance and having it be a straight no-sell X times per whatever. It could fit the fantasy trope of using a weapon to deflect a spell blast quite nicely.

Sorcerer's just make me sad. They are going in the opposite direction than I think they should. First, just convert them to spell points, additional spell systems are good and Sorcerers are just screaming for this change. Second, I am sure I am in the minority on this but I hate the increase in spells known. Instead it should be fewer with more spells coming from the subclass, and ideally subclass unique spells instead of the generic Sorcerer unique spells. As an ability Arcane Apotheosis feels like it fits well with Sorcerers, though I do wish it was subclass specific with each subclass getting an equally powerful alternative (or maybe the option to cast Wish in such a way that strips Arcane Apotheosis and replaces it with some other ability, a Draconic Sorcerer becoming a kind of Dragon comes to mind).

Also, boo on Draconic Sorcs no longer having permanent wings.

Warlocks... oh boy, again like Sorcerers just going in the wrong direction. I get the concern about the lack of spell slots, but half caster progression is not a replacement. I think I like the idea someone else in this thread suggested of just having X castings at Y level per long rest, if the lack of short rests is the issue. Though I think the real issue is one 5e spellcasting suffers from in general, up-casting is very hit or miss for the spells that even have the option, and too many spells don't have it at all. With better and more thorough up-casting you could cut the number of spells overall in half, and reduce the number of spells prepared/known in one swoop. Warlocks would work better only having max level slots and in general multi-classing could be less painful between full casters.

Wizards, I love the modify/create idea. I do get the concerns about it's potential power, I just hope it gets a fair shake and an attempt at balance instead of being axed.

Chaos Jackal

2023-04-27, 02:11 AM

Regarding warlocks, I'm also of the opinion that they weren't wrecked as some people are suggesting.

Yeah, being a half-caster is a nerf alright, but they can still mimic full caster progression through Mystic Arcanum, they got a few other perks here and there and let's face it, Pact Magic is a pain in the ass. I know some will disagree and they'll have their reasons, but personally, having played a lot of warlocks at most levels of the game, Pact Magic could be extremely frustrating; especially in late tier 2, where you have two or three times as many spells as in lv2-3 and much stronger ones at that but are still stuck with the same number of slots after seven levels is borderline torture, to the point that hitting warlock lv11 is always filled not exactly with excitement, but rather with relief. It's just so liberating to finally leave the 2 slots/SR behind, considering that you're stuck with that for nearly half the available levels and likely a much bigger percentage of the game you're playing in. Not to mention the issues it created for spell selection; using one of your two 4th- or 5th-level slots, your only slots in a given fight, to cast a 1st- or 2nd- level spell that did not upcast well or at all felt like a monumental waste. Getting actual slot progression makes the whole thing a lot less annoying, if somewhat blander.

That being said, there was one thing I disliked much more than Pact Magic, and that was Mystic Arcanum. Pact Magic had its fun and its unique attributes and possibly even its advantages, depending on the game. Mystic Arcanum, on the other hand, was simply a downgrade from actual full casting in pretty much every regard - you could only select from spells of a specific level for it, rather than any level-appropriate choice, it did not use slots so you missed out on upcasting lower-level spells (goodbye major image) and, if the game went the full way, the second 6th- and 7th-level slot, until TCE you weren't even allowed to change your pick if it turned out to be a dud (say you picked mental prison and then an invasion from the Feywild happens and you're swarmed in charm-immune enemies) and even after you could only switch on an ASI.

Unfortunately, Mystic Arcanum is still in, with largely the same limitations, and eats into the Invocation budget now to boot. Because let's face it, the ability to mimic full casting to an extent is always gonna be one of the best choices you can make, if not the very best one; sure, you can take other invocations but they're quite unlikely to match the knowledge of higher level spells. The good things are that now you can cast Arcanum spells with slots too, but that'll only be true for the lower-level Arcanum choices (if you don't swap those out when your spellcasting catches up to free some Invocation space that is) and you have a much bigger selection of spells to choose from, but otherwise you still don't get high level slots and you're overlapping with the major customization feature of the class.

So yeah. I don't think the warlock is doomed, but I certainly am not a fan of the return of Mystic Arcanum. If you want warlocks to be casting 9th-level spells, just give them standard casting progression and be done with it, rather than dancing around with the various implementations of this feature.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 02:26 AM

That's the thing, though — you're not using it to rewrite your whole list of spells prepared, you're using it to get the perfect spell for the occasion. The situations where you're going "aw man, I wish I had this one particular spell" are going to be more common than the ones where you go "aw man, I wish I had prepared these two spells".

Yeah, having 1 "free" preparation slot is a big power bump, and oft times will be enough for what you need. But sometimes it might not be enough. Tbh I think it would maybe be more interesting to have Wizard NOT change their spell list on a long rest, have this spell since level 1, and have it be the only way to change their prepared spells, maybe making it take an hour for each level of the spell to be included in the preparation.

Also, I'd normally agree with you about going "hang balance, focus on getting the class to feel right"... except the Wizard is already on the edge of what's reasonable, power-level-wise. And that's actually kinda against theme for the Wizard — they're supposed to have less raw power than the Cleric (who has an actual deity on their side) or the Sorcerer (who is magic), making up for it with their incredible versatility. The Cleric and Sorcerer have features that vaguely gesture in that direction (Divine Intervention, Arcane Apotheosis), but both come online so late.

I agree that its a mechanically very powerful ability, I'm not sure I agree that its thematically bad, both in Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms high level wizardry has been known to compete and sometimes even overpower deities (like Raistlin or Karsus did), so I don't think it's thematically bad for the wizard to have "raw magical power".

The problem is that I think it would be desirable to have Wizards share few common spells, like the ones introduced in this UA, and have most of their repeirtoire be their own, Larloch probably could have had a 1st level damaging spell, but he still created and used his minor drain. The system currently doesn't encourage wizards to be creative with their lists, Create Spell helps wizards differ a smidge more than before, maybe you prefer a Counterspell with extra Range so enemies don't outrange you, and I prefer a counterspell without S component so I can use it without any component at all, but we are both still using the same base spell, and I do think that in most cases spells will end up using the same modifications and defeating the narrative purpose of the feature for a straight power upgrade.

The intention though, is good, and that's something I support, balance can be sought after throughout the playtest.

If I had my druthers, Wizards would be full casters that "cap out" early unless you fully dedicate yourself to study (AKA are an NPC or are in a game with a ton of downtime), make questionable pacts, or sacrifice your (demi-)humanity in some way. In exchange, you've got your big book o' spells and the ability to tinker with them.

I think that's fine, creating a 9th level spell SHOULD take a long time, that what makes them the stuff of legends, if its just a couple hours of work... its not that impressive actually. In 3e it was a week per spell level, still not that much for my tastes, but more reasonable than an afternoon.

Now while writting this I couldn't help but think about the silly parts of this, what happens if we do the following steps:

Spell list

Stuff
Mage Armor
Melfs Acid Arrow
Fireball

Use Modify spell to create an Acid Ball

Stuff
Mage Armor
Melfs Acid Arrow
Acid Ball

Fireball is no longer prepared until we use Modify again (or finish a long rest, but lets suppose we don't in between steps)

Use Memorize spell to bring in Lightning Bolt and take out Acid Ball

Stuff
Mage Armor
Melfs Acid Arrow
Lightning Bolt

Acid Ball is no longer prepared until we use Memorize again

Use Modify to turn Melf's into Lightning

Stuff
Mage Armor
Rukelnikov's Lightning Arrow
Lightning Bolt

Use Memorize again to take out Mage armor and bring in Unseen Servant

Stuff
Unseen Servant
Rukelnikov's Lightning Arrow
Fireball? Acid Ball?

In spirit it should be Fireball otherwise you are modifying 2 spells, but what does that mean? You were just modifying whatever was in Fireballs memory address and that address got rolled back? Its kinda weird.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 02:30 AM

Yeah... I'm not going to point fingers or anything, but it feels like a bunch of people hit the Warlock table, went "they're a half-caster now?!?", and preemptively tossed the class in the trash because the mere sight of that pissed them off so much.

EDIT: This was in response to Chaos Jackal, sorry.

EDIT TO THE EDIT: On the topic of "but there are some canonical Wizards who reached parity with the very gods!"... most of them were either operating under no-longer-extant laws of reality (if I remember correctly, Karsus's hubris literally got 10th-level-spells "errata'd" from reality), have the backing of some powerful patron, or are post-human in some sense (mostly lichdom). Or they're in a situation like Thay, which more or less falls under the "powerful patron" thing.

Honestly, one of the annoying things about how D&D handles magic is that it doesn't really handle "I'm a [TYPE OF CASTER], but I've got additional support from another source" very well. A Wizard 7/Arcana Cleric 3 has weaker spells but a wider range of spell access than a Wizard 10, which feels pretty backwards to me — shouldn't the guy with backing from a literal god of magic have more raw power?

Kane0

2023-04-27, 03:06 AM

Arkhios

2023-04-27, 03:35 AM

I couldnt give the faintest of f**ks that the warlock is more or less balanced as a slot based, long rest halfcaster. Its the fact that an interesting, DIFFERENT way of handling magic/spellcasting has been purged that has drawn my ire.

I'm sure you're not alone with this. Sounds like it's time to voice your concerns in a future feedback poll.

I, myself, feel conflicted.

On one hand, pact magic was in many ways too different and caused an issue Crawford pointed out in the video, that I understand may be a big and common problem: Being the only PC so dependant of short rests to recover your very limited resource - in a group of mostly long rest dependant other PC's - that you're almost completely useless or forced to be a one-trick-pony (looking at you, Eldritch Blast), you are very likely to feel an outsider, unwanted and unimportant member of a group because of this.

On the other hand, I would've preferred to have seen more - not less - uses of Pact Magic mechanic, maybe through subclasses, or a new class even.

Kane0

2023-04-27, 04:10 AM

I'm sure you're not alone with this. Sounds like it's time to voice your concerns in a future feedback poll.

I, myself, feel conflicted.

I understand there are mechanical reasons that a primarily short rest class doesnt always play nicely with a primarily long rest class, but thats not a good reason to remove one or the other. Short rest resources in general have been on the decline for years and it bothers me they cant figure out any sort of sulution besides making everything as similar as possible.

Ive always held the position that most, if not all classes should have good reasons to want both short and long rests. Cleric, Druid, Bard and to an extent wizard are decent examples compared to extremes like warlock, monk and fighter being heavily short rest dependant and barbarian, paladin, ranger, artificer and sorcerer being heavily-to-solely long rest leaning. (Rogue being the odd one out).
Something more than just hit dice for any given character.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 04:26 AM

EDIT TO THE EDIT: On the topic of "but there are some canonical Wizards who reached parity with the very gods!"... most of them were either operating under no-longer-extant laws of reality (if I remember correctly, Karsus's hubris literally got 10th-level-spells "errata'd" from reality), have the backing of some powerful patron, or are post-human in some sense (mostly lichdom). Or they're in a situation like Thay, which more or less falls under the "powerful patron" thing.

I think its a matter of tastes but there enough magic that rivals the gods in the genre and other genres so that it doesn't feel out of place for me.

Honestly, one of the annoying things about how D&D handles magic is that it doesn't really handle "I'm a [TYPE OF CASTER], but I've got additional support from another source" very well.

Agreed, and I don't think it ever has done that decently enough.

A Wizard 7/Arcana Cleric 3 has weaker spells but a wider range of spell access than a Wizard 10, which feels pretty backwards to me — shouldn't the guy with backing from a literal god of magic have more raw power?

There's a couple things with the argument "shouldn't the guy with backing from a literal god of magic have more power?"

First, it holds as much at any levels involved, a Cleric 1 is still a guy backed by a deity, should every Cleric of magic have more raw magic power than any Wizard?*

Second, why can't the Wizard backed by a deity too? My Bladesinger was a champion of Corellon, he was also backed by a deity of magic, even if he was not a cleric.

Third, wouldn't this also apply to other areas too? How come the Barbarian is stronger than the Cleric of Kord god of Strength?

I couldnt give the faintest of f**ks that the warlock is more or less balanced as a slot based, long rest halfcaster. Its the fact that an interesting, DIFFERENT way of handling magic/spellcasting has been purged that has drawn my ire.

I'm sure you're not alone with this. Sounds like it's time to voice your concerns in a future feedback poll.

I, myself, feel conflicted.

On one hand, pact magic was in many ways too different and caused an issue Crawford pointed out in the video, that I understand may be a big and common problem: Being the only PC so dependant of short rests to recover your very limited resource - in a group of mostly long rest dependant other PC's - that you're almost completely useless or forced to be a one-trick-pony (looking at you, Eldritch Blast), you are very likely to feel an outsider, unwanted and unimportant member of a group because of this.

On the other hand, I would've preferred to have seen more - not less - uses of Pact Magic mechanic, maybe through subclasses, or a new class even.

I don't think its an uncommon opinion, pact magic was maybe a bit clunky in some areas, but it was different, instead of trying to fix it, they just did away with it.

Goobahfish

2023-04-27, 04:57 AM

I think this is by far my favourite UA of the bunch so far.

Why?

Because, I think it is the only one so far that actually has a point. Cleric, Ranger etc. They all felt like glorified tweaks.

Warlock and Sorcerer, actually looks like they've gone to some effort. Not everything here is perfect, or even necessarily good, but it is at least 'interesting'.

Warlock
I actually think the Warlock is more appealing than before (even though it was one of my preferred classes). As a medium-armour half-caster it fills a different niche that Sorcerer or Wizard or Bard. However, with Mystic Arcanum you can still do the 'one-off' big things that you formally wanted to do. You take it at level 5 and now you have a once-per-day level 3. Then level 4. Then level 5. Why not? I think the only weakness here is that it doesn't obviously let you learn 'upcasted' versions of lower level spells.

Converting a lot of class abilities into spells is actually good in my opinion. Now, whenever you have anything that references... cast a spell and has a profoundly spell-like effect the two can mesh together sensibly.

Sorcerer
I think this version has a few tweaks required (for example sorcerous burst is kind of cool but not actually effective D6 with explosions is ~4ish damage which is still weaker than a D8 cantrip) but overall, I can now see a 'sorcerer worth playing'. I was actually theory-crafting a sorcerer today and ultimately, it just doesn't stack up. With two metamagics you are basically a one/two trick pony. With this incarnation, there are a few unique things as well as just enough 'extra stuff' to be interesting. The shift towards an actual theme of sorcerer (rather than kinda meh wizard) is also nice. Still has some work to do, but this is a very refreshing take.

Wizard
Interesting return to 3e. Not overly clunky either. Generally good. It seems superficially more powerful but the buffs are generally quite minor for modify/create etc.

Barbarian
Definitely feels more interesting at high levels. Rage restoration probably should come online earlier.

Fighter
Yeah... the weapon properties are a bit clunky but not completely terrible. Nicer wording for 'extra attacks' at least.

---

Yep, definitely my favourite UA for 5.1 so far. I'd almost go so far as to call it... 5.2

Leon

2023-04-27, 05:19 AM

To be expected, the magic classes are as bland as always. Barbarian is pretty neat and the fighter is fighter ~ the weapons stuff is a step in the right direction from the small selection of otherwise very similar options we have atm ~ still the same unless your a "weapon master" but its a start. What would be better is for the weapons to have those Keywords and for the "weapon master feature" to expand on it somehow.

For a start, expand Versatile to be more than just a Dice size ~ that alone lets a Halberd be different from a Glaive when it has (Versatile Damage) = Pick Slashing or piercing when you make an attack with it

Amechra

2023-04-27, 06:12 AM

There's a couple things with the argument "shouldn't the guy with backing from a literal god of magic have more power?".

I think you're missing my point here.

My argument isn't that Clerics should be the strongest class at everything ever, it's that power sources should be additive. If I'm a Barbarian and I also worship Kord hard enough that he gives me divine spells, I should be stronger than a Barbarian who doesn't have that extra source of swoleness, because now I have two reasons for being super strong. A + B > A v B, if that makes sense.

The problem with spellcasters is that you end up in a situation where A + B < A v B, since your maximum spell level is tied to your class instead of your overall spellcaster level, and so much of a spellcaster's character progression is tied to what spell levels they can access. If I had a Wizard 10/Arcana Cleric 10, I'm nowhere near as powerful as I would be if I had just gone for Wizard 20 or Arcana Cleric 20. Apparently my steadfast devotion to and championing of the Goddess of Magic got in the way of my study of magic?

Early D&D handled this by making different levels cost different amounts of XP, so my Wizard 10/Arcane Cleric 10 equivalent would be running around alongside 14th/15th level characters. 3e had theurge prestige classes, which could blend various sources of power into a coherent whole (or at least that's the idea). 4e based multiclassing off of feats and themes, so my Wizard would be a "pure" Wizard that got a bunch of appropriate Cleric features/powers from their feats. 5e... kinda shrugs and goes "at least your spell slots keep getting better?" Your options basically end up being "you can reflavor your class features to make it work!" (which is bad design in a class-based game, which are centered on archetypes as a core design principle) or "the DM can works something out, right?" (because it's not like the DM doesn't have enough on their plate already, right?)

GooeyChewie

2023-04-27, 07:27 AM

While I think the wording is odd, I think the 'class features as spells' aspect is the correct approach. If you made them abilities, how frequent would you let them work? Unlimited? Modified spell, with it's free cost, would allow you to completely rework every spell you had in ways that would allow the Wizard to truly be a Swiss army knife. Scry the enemy, know they're Cold vulnerable and within 10 minutes, you've modified every damaging spell of consequence to deal Cold damage. As a spell, even cast as a ritual, it would be less practical to do.
You could only modify one damaging spell to Cold damage in that situation. Modify Spell's alteration ends if you use Modify Spell again, so you can only have one modified spell at a time.

I've seen this sentiment repeated elsewhere and I understand where it comes from, but I'd like it if you imagine the following options:

WotC did a pretty major rework of the fluff of Warlocks to get it to work. In the 2014 PHB, the fluff is that all your Warlock powers are derived from your patron*. In the playtest material, some of your powers are derived from a pact with a lesser entity, some are derived from your patron, and the rest... I guess you have them innately. Plus you don't get that major patron at all until third level. Certainly there are interesting narratives you can write around the new version. But for players who want their patron front-and-center from the get-go, or who want all their powers to be derived from one patron**, the new version does feel like a step back. Personally I wouldn't say one is worse than the other for Warlock (my opinion is very different on Paladin), but I can see why others would disagree.

*JC said in the video that some of the powers for 2014 Warlock were not derived from the patron. But he also said that the Patron essentially acted as the class, which would mean all class features come from the patron. The 2014 PHB makes it sound like everything is derived from the patron, so I think JC just misspoke when he said that some features did not come from the patron for the 2014 Warlock.

**The playtest material says that you make a Pact with a "lesser entity," and that the Patron is a "more powerful" entity, which means they cannot both be the same entity. As a DM, I would change it to allow the Pact and Patron to come from the same entity. Part of my feedback will be that the final version should specifically allow such an arrangement, where the patron makes a minor pact and then "promotes" the Warlock at 3rd level.

Rafaelfras

2023-04-27, 07:46 AM

I think you're missing my point here.

My argument isn't that Clerics should be the strongest class at everything ever, it's that power sources should be additive. If I'm a Barbarian and I also worship Kord hard enough that he gives me divine spells, I should be stronger than a Barbarian who doesn't have that extra source of swoleness, because now I have two reasons for being super strong. A + B > A v B, if that makes sense.

The problem with spellcasters is that you end up in a situation where A + B < A v B, since your maximum spell level is tied to your class instead of your overall spellcaster level, and so much of a spellcaster's character progression is tied to what spell levels they can access. If I had a Wizard 10/Arcana Cleric 10, I'm nowhere near as powerful as I would be if I had just gone for Wizard 20 or Arcana Cleric 20. Apparently my steadfast devotion to and championing of the Goddess of Magic got in the way of my study of magic?

Early D&D handled this by making different levels cost different amounts of XP, so my Wizard 10/Arcane Cleric 10 equivalent would be running around alongside 14th/15th level characters. 3e had theurge prestige classes, which could blend various sources of power into a coherent whole (or at least that's the idea). 4e based multiclassing off of feats and themes, so my Wizard would be a "pure" Wizard that got a bunch of appropriate Cleric features/powers from their feats. 5e... kinda shrugs and goes "at least your spell slots keep getting better?" Your options basically end up being "you can reflavor your class features to make it work!" (which is bad design in a class-based game, which are centered on archetypes as a core design principle) or "the DM can works something out, right?" (because it's not like the DM doesn't have enough on their plate already, right?)

That's very setting dependent. Not all gods are equal in power and influence across the board
In the Forgotten Realms Mystra heavily favor wizards over everything else, and when you are a wizard so prominent as to win her favor you get the stat of a Chosen, not cleric levels. The champion of the deities of magic in Faerum is The Magister who gets special powers from Mystra Azuth and Savras and it is not clerical powers.
Arcane magic is called the Art and study and understand is what gives you the deepest understanding and power over it. Arcane magic manipulate the Weave directly while divine e magic ask for a deity to do that for you.
In older editions divine magic capped at 7th level and arcane magic was the only who went to 9th level. Also a nitpick Karsus Avatar was a 12th level spell, the only one ever made.
On Kryn magic emanate directly from the tree gods of magic/ moons (sorcerers could get from the spirits of the earth, chaotic energies too) so every high sorcerer wizard is channeling energy directly from the gods of magic from that setting.
On dark sun there are no gods and all divine magic comes from the elemental planes (and this power often is given by the sorcerer kings themselves) so there isn't even a divine influence on the setting.

It's an amazing dip for all Wis or Cha based characters. Also, as mentioned above, the more I'm looking at it the more I'm realizing I can keep up on spells via Mystic Arcanum. Heck, it's not a great dip for a Ranger, Suddenly Ranger is SAD and only need a 14 Dex for AC.

Sure I totally agree that taking mystic arcanum at 5 and then replacing it when you get the slot will make you play as a full caster.
But i see that as a design flaw making players have to play their invocations to fill a gap. In actual play it's fine but it's not a good mechanic, you could make the class progress as a full caster, cap it at level 5 and give the 4 arcana. I think it would be way less clunky

Boverk

2023-04-27, 08:22 AM

After having slept on it, I actually like the sorcerer loadout quite a bit, and I've been doing some recreational probability with the new cantrip Sorcerous Burst. I like how you can have various damage types and the potential to have damage ramp up via 6's giving you extra damage rolls.

I basically want to double check my logic and understanding.

Let's say you're level 20 with 20 charisma
You initially roll 4d6, and you can potentially roll up to 9d6 in total (4 from the spell scaling via level, an extra 5 of you get the required 6's)
How does doubling the dice with critical hits work? (Case1) Do I roll 8d6 and then do the extra rolls from 6's, potentially rolling 13d6 in total? or (Case2) do I do all the damage rolling, up to 9 in total, and then reroll all of those for 18d6 rolled in total? Probably Case1, right?
Let's say Case1 is the correct interpretation and I roll 8d6 on critical hit, any of those that roll 6 can cause the additional d6 rolls, right?

As someone mentioned above, the empowered spell metamagic is interesting for this. Also, if you have Sorcery Incarnate up, all spells have advantage which means critical hits are more likely.

You could easily roll play this as the Avatar State.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 08:44 AM

A little off the current topic but a thought occurred about this UAs Action Surge. They could easily add additional actions available to it with fighter Subclasses. Like having an Eldritch Knight gain the cast a spell action when using action surge (it'd probably be limited to still only one spell per turn).

Dr.Samurai

2023-04-27, 08:48 AM

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

The berserker now gets to do some bonus damage once per turn. How f***ing interesting. Bonus damage once per turn. How did they think of that wholly original idea? Did it come to them in a dream? We're they doing some serious mind-opening hallucinogens and go on a vision quest? Perhaps it was revealed to them by some deity, an act of divine inspiration. Only this could explain such a marvel of unique and creative game design mastery.
This is precisely how I feel.

We all go on and on about how limited martials are and they need xyz to help them, and when the designers wonder what to do with Frenzy they change it to some tacked on damage on 1 attack. Very disappointing.

Also... weren't we supposed to get something to replace GWM and SS? What happened to that? Is it these weapon masteries? Or are casters the only ones allowed to do big damage?

And to go back to Vex for a second... ranged attacks have the benefit of distance, and an ease with targeting. For that, they have to contend with cover, and no easy way to get Advantage (such as Prone). The game has given them a +2 to attack as a Fighting Style, the ability to ignore Cover as a feat, and now some of them get Advantage on their attack roll so long as they hit with the previous one. This seems like way too much. I may actually see one of these crossbow fighters in a game now if this keeps up.

Aimeryan

2023-04-27, 09:11 AM

Does Weapon Mastery Feat for Rogue with Vex weapons at level 4 seem a must now? Or a Fighter dip.
Consider they could get Vex (Advantage on next hit) while dual-wielding Hand Crossbows for the equivalent of 3 attempts at Sneak Attack first round, 4 attempts every round thereafter while being safe(r) at range.

The fact Vex doesn't use the Bonus Action (like Hide does for Advantage) means it can be used in conjuction with DWing.
Nick on the other hand only works with melee weapons and doesn't allow for adding Advantage - and you are still not as safe as being at range even if you use the now free BA to Disengage 15 feat away.

Only issue I can see is the Loading property without CBE; still thinking about how the item interactions would work. An extra arm would help. Maybe a brace of Hand Crossbows...
You could start off with both HXB ready and shoot each fine. For every round afterwards, you would need to load ammo, which requires a free hand, but can be done as part of the attack. So, you would need to have only one in hand at a time, which would require shooting with only one in hand, dropping it, drawing another (which could be one previously dropped), and shooting with that one. Repeat.

Probably want a short chain or something on the HBXs for when you let go of them, just in case your in a shallow stream or something... Alternatively, convince the DM the HXB is attached to the arm:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/39/d5/2839d5f645261959f0a705d0458b5359.jpg

Shame that Pistols are not considered light, since a brace of pistols for this exact reason is historical.

Talij

2023-04-27, 09:40 AM

I decided to look closer at what mastery properties were even available for each weapon to see how big a deal the fighter's ability to change them are. Seems like most fall into a few groups. Note that everything can add slow so not going to list it with the groups.

Melee:
Nick and Vex: club, dagger, handaxe, light hammer, sickle, scimitar, Short sword
Flex, Push, and Topple: quarterstaff, spear, battle-axe, longsword, trident, war pick, Warhammer
Push, Topple, Cleave, Graze: glaive, greataxe, great sword, halberd, lance, maul, pike
Sap: mace, flail, morning star
Vex and Topple: whip
Vex: rapier
Push: greatclub
Only Slow: javelin

Ranged:
Vex, Push, Topple: heavy crossbow, longbow
Vex and Push: light crossbow, short bow, musket
Vex: dart, sling, blowgun, pistol
Vex and Nick: light crossbow

After looking at this, I'm less excited by fighter's ability to swap masteries. Other than heavy melee weapons, most don't have many options and even those mostly just make one weapon function like another existing weapon. Will be useful if I get a magic weapon of one type and wish it was another, but seems more situational.

Getting two masteries and being able to switch on the fly at high levels is a little better, but half the weapons only have 3 options anyways so still pretty limited as is. Not expecting a lot of javelin builds anyway, but can they at least get a second opinion?

tokek

2023-04-27, 09:56 AM

I decided to look closer at what mastery properties were even available for each weapon to see how big a deal the fighter's ability to change them are. Seems like most fall into a few groups. Note that everything can add slow so not going to list it with the groups.

[snip]

After looking at this, I'm less excited by fighter's ability to swap masteries. Other than heavy melee weapons, most don't have many options and even those mostly just make one weapon function like another existing weapon. Will be useful if I get a magic weapon of one type and wish it was another, but seems more situational.

Getting two masteries and being able to switch on the fly at high levels is a little better, but half the weapons only have 3 options anyways so still pretty limited as is. Not expecting a lot of javelin builds anyway, but can they at least get a second opinion?

I feel like the core use case for the 7th level ability will be to swap out the mastery on your magic weapon to one that fits your style better. Which in published adventures is definitely a thing that is going to happen. Longswords have pretty much the least interesting base mastery and are one of the most common magic weapons found.

Its less value in a game where the DM hands out weapons tailored to what the members of the party already use and want.

Bane's Wolf

2023-04-27, 09:57 AM

Wow - i'm very late to this thread...

In general, i like this playtest doc. It is just a lot to wrap my head around and develop strong thoughts on.
I'm probably going to change my mind on a lot of it as i sleep on it and follow the conversation, but for the moment:

Weapon Masteries:
I like these. They add a little bit extra for Warriors to do in combat.
Pistols and Muskets should perhaps not be quite so player facing, but that is just my preference

Barbarian:
The changes are fine.
Primal Knowledge is hilarious :smallbiggrin: and i love it

Fighter:
I like the changes. Weapon expert seems a bit silly though... I can make my sword do a new mastery, but it loses the old one? Maybe just let it be both and i choose which to use in combat...
I think they may be overestimating the EPIC POWER of these masteries just a tad...:smallwink:

Sorcerer:
Love it :smallsmile:
Nice boost all round. Twinned spell is very strange now. Someone already said it, but i agree it should probably be called "Repeat Spell"

Wizard:
I like it more than i though i would.
The weird Modify and Create Spells are bloody awesome, even though they feel clunky as spells :smallconfused:
If making them spells serves a balance purpose, i can easily live with it. I'd likely justify it with "spells are programs" kinda logic
Modify Spell is a MOD-Tool which you have to run on another spell.
Create Spell is is a Compiling Tool to re-write it into your own code
(i am not a developer - someone please tell me if this make any sense :smalltongue:)

Warlock:
Hoo-Boy, this one is interresting... I kinda love and hate it :smalleek:
I'm happy to dump Pact Magic. It was always klunky and hard to explain to newbies.

The core Warlock fantasy in my head was always closer to a full caster, so i would have just dumped Mystic Arcanum and made them a full caster.

Making them a half caster surprised me, until i read upthread about using Mystic Arcanum to essentially emulate a full caster progression. Now i think it works better.

Warlock is a half caster, like ranger and paladin, who can choose to lean in to a full caster pursuit of magic, or can choose to have interesting unique abilities we've always seen from Warlocks. It is still a very flexible Build-a-Bear class

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

I am very tempted to start up a half dozen threads, just so we can discuss the individual parts of this playtest doc. I'll consider doing so once i can take a break from work

Boverk

2023-04-27, 10:02 AM

Sorcerer:
Love it :smallsmile:
Nice boost all round. Twinned spell is very strange now. Someone already said it, but i agree it should probably be called "Repeat Spell"

Spell Echo? Reverberation?

Boverk

2023-04-27, 10:09 AM

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 10:16 AM

With regards to scribe spell being a spell, I'm fine with it as long as its always prepared. Basically every wizard is made to perform this one over and over until it is functionally etched in their soul.

Adding spells to your spell book is more than just copying lines, you're infusing it with a bit of your magic, so it should be an arcane process.

Yeah, I really like it as a spell. Scribing scrolls is an arcane ritual. It puts me in mind if the bit from the start of Secret of NiMH (the animated movie) with Nicodemus writing and he's like coaxing the ink out of the pot with some sort of magic and as he puts quill to page it glows. Like, yeah, scribing scrolls should be magical

Joe the Rat

2023-04-27, 10:17 AM

Broadly I like where they're going with Weapon Mastery. But I also look at it and want to make one of those Omni-Man memes, referencing DCC's Mighty Deeds of Arms.

It took me longer than I want to admit for my brain to register that the Sorcerer and Warlock "Spells Prepared" is actually just "Spells Known" with a different label. At base, you can swap out one "prepared" spell every time you level up. Why they want to use the same term for what's in your toolkit, and have classes "prepare" spells in wildly different ways is a bit odd.

Making everything a spell has its merits, but there are a few oddities - having to (ritual) cast a spell to recreate your spellbook seems like one hell of a dead end. Make it Always Prepared and Doesn't Count, fer Mystrasakes. having the Three Flavors of Magic, and then adding [Class]-only spells is slightly counter-concept, but it does work. Whether all of those "spells" need to be spells and not features is another issue.

Most of my feelings are (unsurprisingly) about the Warlock. I'll dump on the other thread, but here's where I am:

But on the other hand you can burn 1st level slots on shield, which hurt like hell to a 9th level Warlock. They are much closer to a full caster progression than to a half caster one, the problem is that their uniqueness got taken away, so it's not really about it being a nerf or a buff* in my case, but about Warlock losing uniqueness.

*Now it doesn't feel like you need to dip some other caster for a few 1st level slots to burn on Shield or AE instead of paying a 4th or 5th slot for it, and your levels count towards spell slot progression, whether its better or worse will depend on the build in question.

I couldnt give the faintest of f**ks that the warlock is more or less balanced as a slot based, long rest halfcaster. Its the fact that an interesting, DIFFERENT way of handling magic/spellcasting has been purged that has drawn my ire.

I liked the Pact system because it was screwy and different. That's been the Warlock schtick since 3.5 - when it comes to magic, they're doing it "wrong," which was fun. A few all-day powers, a few limited use, and just all sorts of things that aren't quite spells. Turning into a slot caster - half or otherwise - loses some of that flavor.

Boverk

2023-04-27, 10:46 AM

Here's some probability calcs on Sorcerous Burst. Here, I assumed the character had 20 charisma (so +5 bonus) and was level 17+ (so rolling 4d6 to start). This is ignoring critical hits(for now), but it should benefit a bit more than other spells, depending on how critical hits are handled. Also not messing with metamagic yet.

#Dice Rolled
Probability
Expected Damage by # Dice Rolled

4
0.48225
12

5
0.32150
18

6
0.13396
24

7
0.04465
30

8
0.01302
36

9
0.00461
44

The overall expected damage is about 16.8. A reasonable comparison would be to compare it to the fire bolt spell cast by the same character which has an expected damage of 22.

Sorcerous Burst definitely wins for style points, and if they wanted to bring the damage up a hair, make every 1d6 you roll a 1d6+1. Doing this would bring the expected damage (20 charisma, level 17+) from 16.8 up to 21.6.

I don't think changing the dice size is a good idea, because that skews the probabilities for additional dice rolls and the +1 doesn't muddy the critical hit math either.

EDIT: Here's the critical hit numbers. Again assuming 20 charisma and level 17+. Further assuming that this is how you handle critical hits for this spell: Roll 8d6, if any of them are 6's, roll again, up to a maximum of 5 times (so roll between 8 and 13 dice, inclusive).

Critical Hit Numbers:

#Dice Rolled
Probability
Expected Damage by # Dice Rolled

8
0.2326
24

9
0.3101
30

10
0.2326
36

11
0.1292
42

12
0.0592
48

13
0.0364
58

The overall expected damage of a critical hit is about 33.6.

The expected damage of a critical hit firebolt by the same caster is 44. But as others have pointed out, the other characteristics of the spell probably outweighs the damage difference.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 11:05 AM

Ok, after thinking about the Create/Modify spell stuff, I really don't like it. Primarily because you are not creating a spell.

At best, you're making a modified spell more permanent. Yippee? I can have a permanent Acidball or Firewave or something. With a bigger expenditure I can make more modifications, which is nice, but I'm still not CREATING a spell.

I'll post a spell I created for my Necromancer class here as an example.

Death Walk

8th-level necromancy

Casting Time: 10 minutes (ritual)

Range: Unlimited

Components: V, S, M (Fine incense, candles, and the dust of a black diamond worth at least 1000gp, all of which are consumed by the spell)

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

You magically possess a dead corpse. Choose the corpse of a humanoid creature that has been dead for no more than a month and with which you are familiar. The target need not be on the same plane of existence as you. Your consciousness possesses the corpse, creating an abominable undead creature under your control. Your control lasts for 1 hour or until the possessed corpse is reduced to 0 hit points. The creature has the statistics of an ogre zombie, though you retain your spellcasting ability during the possession and may cast spells through the possessed corpse as if you were in its position. You also retain your alignment and intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores. While in possession of the corpse, you are blinded, deafened, and incapacitated with regards to your own body.

As I read the modify/create spells, there is no way in hell you could actually create death walk using these spells, nor any other way to create it outside of DM fiat. I'm all for the ability to create spells, but it should be the option to make COMPLETELY NEW spells. Not some glorified metamagic in your spellbook.

Ugh. Rant over. Sorry.

Here's some probability calcs on Sorcerous Burst.
snip

Personally, I think sorcerous burst is fine as-is. The damage is a bit lower, yes, but that's balanced two things: exploding dice and choosing your damage type. The latter of which is more important, imo. Sure a firebolt does more damage, unless you're fighting something resistant/immune to fire, which is extremely common. If that's the case, now you need to know ANOTHER cantrip to effectively deal damage, while the sorc just chooses a different damage type. It's really efficient, and well worth the trade off in damage.

Amnestic

2023-04-27, 11:06 AM

Aimeryan

2023-04-27, 11:07 AM

Aimeryan

2023-04-27, 11:13 AM

Losing pact-casting is a huge "no" from me on the Warlock side.

Mildly hot-take perhaps but I'd rather everyone move to the pact magic SR system than for everyone to move to the standard LR spellcasting stuff, but if I can't get that then I'd at least want to keep warlocks as special and, as said above, "weird".

If the goal is to get away from Short Rests being such a big deal, why not just half the slots and make per encounter? Would still be unique and a lot easier to work with. For odd numbers of Spell Slots, it wouldn't be a bad idea to maybe get a lower Spell Slot. So at 11th, for example, get one Level 5 and one Level 3 Spell Slot back per encounter.

Psyren

2023-04-27, 11:14 AM

But on the other hand you can burn 1st level slots on shield, which hurt like hell to a 9th level Warlock. They are much closer to a full caster progression than to a half caster one, the problem is that their uniqueness got taken away, so it's not really about it being a nerf or a buff* in my case, but about Warlock losing uniqueness.

*Now it doesn't feel like you need to dip some other caster for a few 1st level slots to burn on Shield or AE instead of paying a 4th or 5th slot for it, and your levels count towards spell slot progression, whether its better or worse will depend on the build in question.

^ This, and also racial spells are way more useful than they were on the previous Warlock.

You're right, currently you'd be left stuck with finding 2 scrolls of Scribe Spell* and use one of those to scribe the other on a blank book. Tbh... its not that bad, and makes losing the spellbook a problem, it may be ok th let the Wizard keep one of its weaknesses.

*likely the most readily available scroll though as its the cornerstone of every wizards repertoire.

Whether it's common or not though, a class shouldn't be dependent on specific magic items of any kind being available to cover for what could be a simple yet impactful mistake. Lots of tables randomly generate loot, scrolls in particular. If this one spell is so vital to wizards core functionality then it should be always prepared, or potentially not a spell at all but a feature. (I can understand why they made it a spell though.)

I have kinda the same feaaling with the playtest as a whole, for all they say "Don't call it 5.5, its not 5.5", it very much feels like the same edition with a couple adjustments, I'd have loved for them to move a little more outside of their comfort zone, if not in the playtest then when?

They're attempting to thread a very tricky needle here. Too different and people say "see, backwards compatibility was a lie, you need to dump your old books! Cash grab!" Too much the same and people say "why do we even need new books? They're trying to sell us the PHB twice! Cash grab!"

On a related note, I don't know if the announcement of CR's own system will impact the design decisions of WotC in regards to the new edition going forward, maybe feeling like they have "competition" can make them feel like they need to bring something new to the table.

I think CR's system is more likely to impact Paizo but we'll see.

Dork_Forge

2023-04-27, 11:15 AM

Just skimmed through some parts so initial impressions, but... what on earth are they thinking with some of this stuff.

The Fighter in particular seems like a massive mixed bag of nerfs in a lot of areas:

- Action Surge is now heavily restricted... despite the fact that Fighter subclasses can do more than just those actions?

- Second Wind is now no longer a short rest resource? Greater healing potential in one go, but flies in the face of the Fighter being quick to bounce back, especially since they changed Indomitable to no longer scales uses on its own but use Second Wind instead. Failing a saving throw doesn't automatically mean you'll want to use your very limited pool of heals.

- Indomitable is... just what? Do they remember it's a bounded accuracy game? This just seems like a jank way of making a Fighter eventually succeed any save with Indomitable... except they can still fail at high levels, so it's just a weirdly big bonus. They may as well have changed it to work Legendary Resistance.

- They make their thing being able to have two masteries as they go up in level?! But still make them choose one at a time.

The Barbarian looks weird too, using Strength for Dex based stuff they'd have a modifier in anyway? Just let them use their Rage damage bonus as a skill bonus.

Brutal Critical seems like a weird side grade, the ceiling is now lower than it was originally, but it's more reliable. Just give them expanded crit range.

And the Bezerker... I don't like that it's tied to Reckless Attack, but good lord if Crits exist that is going to be insane.

The note about giving epic boons more pizazz is worrisome. Their track record for supporting high level play is already terrible and the 20th level feats look like a mixed bag. The resilience one is basically making some build nigh unkillable whilst the speed and teleport one are such extreme mobility buffs that it is really going to tear down a lot of encounter design.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 11:15 AM

I'm half convinced WotC just can't math - once again, a Sorcerer-only spell is worse than the generic spell comparisons.

It's not worse, though. See my post a couple posts above this. Sure, the raw damage is a bit lower, but it's balanced by more efficient spell selection and exploding dice (which are tons of fun).

Boverk

2023-04-27, 11:15 AM

I'm half convinced WotC just can't math - once again, a Sorcerer-only spell is worse than the generic spell comparisons.

I think Oramac made a good point with the different spell damage types. If the character you're playing as has a good knowledge of your enemies, they could avoid resistances or even take advantage of weaknesses. A spell potentially going from 0.5 damage to 2x damage is pretty significant.

I'm excited to play around with it, just cause I love versatility and flavor.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 11:32 AM

- Action Surge is now heavily restricted... despite the fact that Fighter subclasses can do more than just those actions?

I'm assuming, like the Rogue's cunning action, they'll add to it for different subclasses. Giving the EK the ability to cast a spell with it for example.

Joe the Rat

2023-04-27, 11:42 AM

The Barbarian looks weird too, using Strength for Dex based stuff they'd have a modifier in anyway? Just let them use their Rage damage bonus as a skill bonus.

It sounds like they are trying to turn Strength into "The expression of the barbarian's primal power," i.e. a pseudo casting stat. It's not muscling your way through being sneaky, it's your innate WAAAAGH power making you sneaky, and also beefy. I do like the rage damage as bonus idea though. It may be higher or lower than just a strength substitution depending on your actual attributes, but it is directly tied to your rage power, and will grow with level.

Warlock'sFriend

2023-04-27, 11:53 AM

Big fan of the direction they're taking the warlock with spellcasting, even if they are a half caster pretending to be a full caster. I dig the shift with Mystic Arcanum, Pact Boons (especially chain pact), and how you can contact your patron mechanically in later levels. Hopeful that most of it survives the playtests and I'm curious to see someone do a deep dive analysis.

It feels like we finally are getting a warlock who mechanically feels like their power stems from an otherworldy shortcut to arcane power, not just in the flavor text.

Dr.Samurai

2023-04-27, 11:57 AM

It sounds like they are trying to turn Strength into "The expression of the barbarian's primal power," i.e. a pseudo casting stat. It's not muscling your way through being sneaky, it's your innate WAAAAGH power making you sneaky, and also beefy. I do like the rage damage as bonus idea though. It may be higher or lower than just a strength substitution depending on your actual attributes, but it is directly tied to your rage power, and will grow with level.
I had a similar idea, calling the Rage Damage "Primal Bonus" instead and applying it to different things. It will be a big debuff to Primal Knowledge, as you also get Advantage with Primal Knowledge, since you're raging and they become Strength checks. But I agree it's a little wonky as is. I see what they're going for, as you describe Joe the Rat, but it needs to be outlined elsewhere, because everyone is going to have the same thought.

Kaviyd

2023-04-27, 12:04 PM

Boverk

2023-04-27, 12:15 PM

Big Snip

I updated this post with another table for critical hit numbers with my assumptions about how this spell will handle critical hits, if interested.

Segev

2023-04-27, 12:21 PM

Losing pact-casting is a huge "no" from me on the Warlock side.

Agreed. Making classes less unique from each other is boring as heck.

I still am not a fan of Mystic Arcanum, though I suppose as an invocation at least it's not pretending to be some deeper understanding than a wizard gets on his own.

Also, in trying to clarify Eyes of the Rune Keeper, they've still left it vague, but now also easier to read as being far less useful: It says you "get the surface meaning" but "can't decode." I still interpret that as being the same as it was before: you can tell what the writing says, but you can't tell what it means if the words it says have hidden meanings. e.g., "Go to Charlie Bravo and Initiate Plan Bash," doesn't let you know that "Charlie Bravo" is the second of the possible locations for this plan, nor that "plan Bash" is a surprise birthday party. But if it were written as, "Vayate a Chari Bravo y comenzate 'Plan Bash,'" the spanish (as bad as mine is, here) would translate for you so you'd understand the message as easily as in English. Similarly, if you saw it as, "Tl gl Xsziorv Yizel zmw Rmrgrzgv Kozm Yzhs," Eyes of the Rune Keeper would still give you the plain meaning ("Go to Charlie Bravo and Initiate Plan Bash."), because you can read the writing, even enciphered.

However, because they use the phrase "decode" to indicate what you can't do, now that does potentially bring the deciphering power into question. Given that it otherwise is worse than just casting comprehend languages at will, I sincerely hope that's not their intention. I'd have just left it as it was written in 5.0, personally.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 01:16 PM

Segev

2023-04-27, 01:17 PM

Hey, I don't know if I'm reading this correctly but from my reading if you're say, a wizard 5/warlock 2 the spell you learn from warlock 2 could be a 3rd level spell. As it says "the chosen spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots." So because you have access to 3rd level slots, you can learn 3rd level spells.

That's the same wording as in the PHB, and it has been repeatedly stated that the intended interpretation - regardless of whether the denotation of the words says this or not - is that you must have a level in the class granting the spell that would give you that level of spell slot if you were single-classed.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-27, 01:20 PM

It feels like we finally are getting a warlock who mechanically feels like their power stems from an otherworldy shortcut to arcane power, not just in the flavor text.

This, the fact that you use invocations to cheat into higher level magic is kind of exactly what it looks like, getting power from a shortcut.

I thought I'd look at the numbers on the Warlock since so many are having concerns over the spell slots (I did originally too).

Armor Class: Unarguably better, everyone gets Medium Armor instead of Light.

Pact Boon: Better. Tome trades 1 Cantrip for the ability to shift the Cantrips around almost at will, getting your rituals automatically and being able to shift those around as well. Blade Pact gets SAD combat modifiers from the get go, no more Hexblade tax, you can also use thrown weapons as an option now. Chain is more openly a useful pet. And in general none of these require a Boon Invocation Tax to function normally, No Improved Pact Weapon, no Thirsting Blade, no Book of Ancient Secrets, no Investment of the Chain master, no Voice of the Chain Master and most interestingly, for Tomelocks no Agonizing Blast.

Spells: For this looking at just the 1-5 casting both get assuming optimal short rests planned (IE 2)
5e Cantrips: 2-4
1DND Cantrips: 3-5

5e Spell Slots: 3/0/0/0/0 to 0/0/0/0/12. With access to new Spell levels as 3, 5, 7, 9.
1DND Spell Slots: 2/0/0/0/0 to 5/4/4/4/3. With access to new spell levels at 5, 9, 13, 17

5e Spells Known: 2-15
1DND Spells Known: 3-26

Ultimately the 5e Warlock gets more power but more limited usage of it and quicker access (Without invocations). However the 1DND has more spell slots, more spells known and more flexibility.

Invocations: 5e gets 2 to 7 in total wtih 4 Mystic Arcanum of levels 6/7/8/9, 1DND gets 2-9 total Again, on surface it looks like 5e has more, but let's talk it through.

5e: 7 invocations, but 2-3 are pretty much unavoidable choices. Tome and Chain NEED Agonizing Blast. Tome NEEDS Book of Ancient Secrets, Chain NEEDS Investment and apparently from other opinions Voice of the Chain Master. Blade NEEDS Thirsting Blade and either Improved Pact weapon or Agonizing Blast. That's gone now. So while before you have 7 and 4-5 got to be meaningful choices, now, if you chose to go the route of full Arcanum you have 5 meaningful choices. So it's something of a wash. Except again, more flexibility.

Mind you, that's IF you choose to use Invocations on Mystic Arcanum to keep access to spell levels at a normal pace (ie 3rd at 5th level, 4th at 7th, etc). Realistically if you're going Blade, you might not even care about having those spell slots immediately and have more room to wiggle.

All in all, the overall thing I'm seeing is that the 1DND Warlock is stronger on non-spellcasting areas without much room for argument. Meanwhile as a Caster they are a tiny bit weaker but far more flexible and that weakness largely disappears as they continue to level up. The weakness stems from slower access to slots vs an actual loss of ability.

Psyren

2023-04-27, 01:28 PM

Tome and Chain NEED Agonizing Blast.

Actually, Tome gets agonizing blast for free starting at 5th (another tax removal). So you can pick that up at 2nd and then drop it at 5th for MA (3rd), keeping up with full casters and still having another invocation free.

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-27, 01:30 PM

Actually, Tome gets agonizing blast for free starting at 5th (another tax removal). So you can pick that up at 2nd and then drop it at 5th for MA (3rd), keeping up with full casters and still having another invocation free.

That was my point. A 5e Warlock needs to take Agonizing Blast, a 1DND Tomelock can swap it out at level 5.

Dork_Forge

2023-04-27, 01:33 PM

I'm assuming, like the Rogue's cunning action, they'll add to it for different subclasses. Giving the EK the ability to cast a spell with it for example.

I hope they'd at least do that, it feels... Annoying at least that subclass word count is going to be eaten up by 'features' that are just OG Action Surge.

It sounds like they are trying to turn Strength into "The expression of the barbarian's primal power," i.e. a pseudo casting stat. It's not muscling your way through being sneaky, it's your innate WAAAAGH power making you sneaky, and also beefy. I do like the rage damage as bonus idea though. It may be higher or lower than just a strength substitution depending on your actual attributes, but it is directly tied to your rage power, and will grow with level.

I get what they're going for, it's just goofy to use strength as a star for that. The whole reason that using mental for stuff isn't as janky is because you can explain away mental applications of thing, but Strength is well defined as what it says on the tin.

It feels like the whole Prof bonus for things that shouldn't use it, that like a number/range, but then tie it to something weird or inappropriate. Like dipping Barbarian is hardly unheard of, so Barbarian features scaling outside of class is... Distasteful imo.

I have only read a portion of the UA so far (more on this in at the end) but the design decisions seem so... Odd.

And I'm just gonna say it, this UA is wildly inappropriate. 50 pages? The sheer size of it is a barrier to most people and certainly a barrier to reading it thoroughly/rereading it to give real feedback. The images didn't need to be in this and we could have had Monk, or vice versa the martial stuff could have come next time. Choking an audience like this is not going to yield the best feedback.

Psyren

2023-04-27, 01:53 PM

Strength (Stealth) does feel odd but I'm down with all the others. If they called it "Furious Focus" or even "Primal Instinct" instead of "Primal Knowledge" then it would fit a lot better.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 02:00 PM

Strength (Stealth) does feel odd but I'm down with all the others.

Don't you dare crap on my Strength (Stealth) checks!! :P

But seriously, I think changing the name would feel better. Otherwise I really like it as-is.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 02:02 PM

For Sorcerous Burst, bear in mind that Empower Spell offers you additional chances to explode. It's not a huge difference, mind you, but it's still something.

...

Also, to look at the cantrip from an alternate direction, what if we look at it from the point of view of "how many dice can you expect to see?":

Number of Initial Dice
1d6
2d6
3d6
4d6
5d6
6d6
7d6
8d6
9d6

1d6
83.33%
13.89%
2.31%
0.46%

2d6

69.44%
23.15%
5.79%
1.41%
0.18%
0.02%

3d6

57.87%
28.94%
9.65%
2.84%
0.59%
0.12%

4d6

48.23%
32.15%
13.40%
4.64%
1.24%
0.34%

Looking at this, it's actually fairly likely that you'll get at least one extra d6 of damage out of the spell. And, for comparison, here's what the chart looks like if you use Empower Spell to reroll any initial die that rolls a 3 or below:

Number of Initial Dice
1d6
2d6
3d6
4d6
5d6
6d6
7d6
8d6
9d6

1d6
75.00%
20.83%
3.47%
0.69%

2d6

56.25%
31.25%
9.55%
2.32%
0.53%
0.10%

3d6

42.19%
35.16%
15.62%
5.12%
1.45%
0.24%

4d6

31.64%
35.16%
20.50%
8.56%
2.96%
1.16%

Unfortunately, of course, Empower Spell costs spell points, and dumping those into making a cantrip slightly better is pretty lame.

EDIT: I mean, Primal Knowledge seems pretty straightforward to me:

Strength (Acrobatics)? You're just demonstrating the power of core muscle strength by balancing or backflipping or whatever. Just being an absolute unit.
Strength (Intimidation)? You're swole and in control, and other people make way for you and your muscles.
Strength (Survival)? You're so strong that you can take routes and collect resources that most people couldn't. Rip open that spring with your bare hands!
Strength (Perception)? The muscles that focus your eyes are so strong, you guys. So strong.
Strength (Stealth)? Well, isn't it obvious? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMd4S-LkywI)

I mean, it's a bit ridiculous, but going "but you can't use Strength for that!" just proves that you're insufficiently swole.

Pex

2023-04-27, 02:02 PM

Impressions before I read the thread.

Nice improvement on the Sorcerer. Hate the nerf to Twin Spell but everything else I like. Thank you for making Careful Spell and Extend Spell worth taking now.

Everyone cheer as Eldritch Blast is based on Warlock level and all Bladelocks attack with casting stat. Can Bladelocks please get shield proficiency? Interesting if you don't take Agonizing Blast you can still add casting stat to damage by Warlock class feature. The invocation is there for those who want it early but can then can be traded out. It's no longer a tax as with other Pact Boon invocations. I'm not happy Mystic Arcanum are invocations. Not a fan of new Hex spell.

With the buff to Sorcerer they needed to do something with Wizard to make it worth taking. Just having more spells known is not enough. I like the idea of changing spells to create new spells to suit to taste. The problem is it's too expensive. I can appreciate wanting a limitation to help avoid unforeseen consequences, but expensive cost is not the way to go. Low gold campaigns Wizards lose a class feature. I'm not even being cynical about stingy DMs. Some campaigns all legit just don't deal in thousands of gold pieces. PCs can have only 300 gp to their name and be fine. They still get magic items as treasure. Warriors will have full plate. High gold campaigns Wizards are spending money on a class feature. What is everyone else doing? Maybe instead flat limit number of new spells to two per spell level. There can still be a gold cost but in hundreds of gp, not thousands.

I like the buff to Champion. I don't recall any negative points as of posting. Fighter is improved nicely.

Thank you for removing exhaustion from Frenzy. Worth taking now for those players who want to Hulk smash the damage. I'm guessing future new Bear Barbarians will still be for those who enjoying soaking damage for the team. I was worried when they mentioned a bonus action to continue rage. At first read it looked like it was something barbarians had to do, but fortunately when presented in the actual class feature they only meant just a flat out replacement for having taken damage only. If you attack or force a saving throw you still rage allowing other uses for your bonus action. The bonus action is only necessary if you aren't taking any direct offensive action that turn, such as you need to Dash after moving for whatever reason.

Boverk

2023-04-27, 02:06 PM

Unfortunately, of course, Empower Spell costs spell points, and dumping those into making a cantrip slightly better is pretty lame.

What I was thinking for Empower Spell is to maybe treat it like smite? once the crit happens, then use empowered spell?

But yeah, there's probably better ways to use the spell points

Oramac

2023-04-27, 02:36 PM

Not a fan of new Hex spell.

Help me out here. Near as I can tell, the only difference is that the UA Hex damage is once per turn. No other changes. Is that what everyone dislikes?

EDIT: that and extra damage on an upcast for the UA version. Seems like a decent trade to me, assuming you can upcast it.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-27, 02:48 PM

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-27, 03:02 PM

tokek

2023-04-27, 03:23 PM

Agreed. Making classes less unique from each other is boring as heck.

I still am not a fan of Mystic Arcanum, though I suppose as an invocation at least it's not pretending to be some deeper understanding than a wizard gets on his own.

I hated mystic arcanum at first with 5e but I turned around on it - I think it thematically works better for warlocks than pact magic. If warlocks are about cutting deals, making pacts etc then mystic arcanum worked for me as deals being cut between the warlock and the patron.

So pushing more of their magic into these deals actually feels distinctive and different and rather thematic for me.

But tastes can differ of course.

Psyren

2023-04-27, 03:31 PM

That was my point. A 5e Warlock needs to take Agonizing Blast, a 1DND Tomelock can swap it out at level 5.

My bad! I thought you meant the new one there.

I hated mystic arcanum at first with 5e but I turned around on it - I think it thematically works better for warlocks than pact magic. If warlocks are about cutting deals, making pacts etc then mystic arcanum worked for me as deals being cut between the warlock and the patron.

So pushing more of their magic into these deals actually feels distinctive and different and rather thematic for me.

But tastes can differ of course.

Indeed, this. And it makes multiclassing Warlock much more interesting, especially Wizlock or Clerock multiclassing.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 03:34 PM

It'd be neat if Mystic Arcanum could nab spells from other lists. Primal for Faelock and Divine for Celestial lock. Though their bonus spells might make this unnecessary.

I wonder what the 4th warlock subclass will be. Provided they stick with fiend, fae, GOO, that is. Might not be a bad speculation thread for what all the PHB subclasses will end up being.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 03:35 PM

Indeed, this. And it makes multiclassing Warlock much more interesting, especially Wizlock or Clerock multiclassing.

And with the fluff that your Pact and Patron can be different, there's a ready-made reason for a Paladin/Warlock multiclass too. With TONS of good story potential.

Theodoxus

2023-04-27, 03:59 PM

Book of Shadows, I don't see anywhere where you can add new Rituals (or ever replace the 2 you start with). I'm either blind (please help) or that's a massive de-powering of the Pact Boon.

OTOH, the 5th level ability to boost damage on cantrips applies to any cantrip as far as I can see, not just EB. With all the thread's current talk about Sorcerous Burst, a Warlock 5/Sorc 1 seems interesting (well, probably something like W5/S11 for 3d6+5... though given Tome is Cha based, it's be pretty MAD to be effective... good job WotC).

Dalinar

2023-04-27, 04:15 PM

I forgot how much hyperbole makes the world go around.

General structural changes to the effect of "this thing that would have been a class feature is now a spell" is... a sidegrade, I think. There's a balance to be struck between frontloading everything you need to know about how to play a class into the class' text itself (and risking making it a "tl;dr" situation) versus the style they went for here, which may involve a lot of "go to page X to learn how this works" that wouldn't previously have been needed. Granted, if you know any spells, you have to do that anyway.

Weapon mastery is a cool thing that will probably need a balance pass; the gap between literally everything else and then Flex way at the bottom is kinda glaring. Push, Sap, Topple, and Vex seem like the strongest ones; Nick might be really good as well, but that kinda depends on how much use a given dual-wielder can make out of freeing up their bonus action. I imagine a dual-wielding Rogue would probably like that quite a bit, as it increases the chance of getting off a Sneak Attack (and current Swashbuckler sort of allows that playstyle already). Same with Paladins and Divine Smite, albeit smite nerfs cap out the nova potential on that one, but hypothetically a DW Paladin that wanted to take advantage of smite spells could get their offhand attack or their smite spell but not both, since both cost a bonus action... unless you use a Nick weapon. Though both of those classes require getting access to the weapon mastery system in the first place, which is an investment for them, but not for barbs or fighters.

New barb looks awesome. Probably the biggest winner if 2024 PHB was printed unchanged from this doc; as a non-DM, Barbarians felt pretty good at my table, but that's because the vast majority of our play has been in the 3-6 range--they shine really hard in those levels but fall off later. I think this is still kinda true (maybe less so due to the big DPS feats catching nerfs, which was a big culprit with the frontloading), but Primal Knowledge at least makes them much more versatile on the skill front. The more important takeaway that I don't think anyone in this thread caught is that Barbarians are no longer tied to melee attacks, just Strength attacks. Stuff like javelins and handaxes are fully online now, making the Barbarian that much harder to lock down. The ability to extend rage with a bonus action also alleviates some weird contrivances like "I get the wizard's familiar to slap me every round so I don't lose rage early."

I feel largely the same way about new fighter. In particular, I like the new Indomitable a lot. Quick story to explain: our table uses a houserule known as "player-facing AC," which essentially means that instead of monsters rolling to attack, players roll to defend. (In other words, this inverts the usual relationship of attack bonus to AC, where AC-10 is now the bonus to the roll and the monster's attack bonus determines the target to beat in order to not get hit. There's some effort to make the math work out, but the end result helps with player engagement, IMO.) One of my all-time favorite moments in combat was walking up to a boss with a character that had heavily invested in AC, dodging, and then quickly discovering that this boss had a ton of attacks. I got to repeatedly roll (d20>d20)+12, avoiding the vast majority of the damage and surviving the rest--a maneuver probably nobody else in the room could have pulled off. Point of the story is, "roll d20 and add an absurdly high modifier" is a lot of fun when used sparingly. New Indomitable scratches the same itch for me--a fighter with +3CON at level 9 has a +7 CON save. Imagine failing a DC20 CON save, which is a really brutal DC to make mind you. If you use Indomitable, now you get a reroll at +16, which is extremely likely to work. "I rolled a 35 on my save, does that pass?" Also, if you didn't see the Action Surge nerf coming, I don't know what to tell you. (I do hope that Eldritch Knight gets to cast spells with Action Surge, at the least, but I don't know if they'd go in that direction.)

I like the new Sorcerer quite a bit. Struggling to grasp the math behind Sorcerous Burst after 5th level, but I'm kinda imagining Draconic 6/Genie X and just having this cantrip that does 2d6+CHA+PB and having the d6s explode, and then also you have a pact boon, invocations, and a genie vessel to boot (although none of the pacts have a ton of synergy here--note the Pact Familiar doesn't seem to be able to Help in combat, Pact Weapon doesn't do all that much for you, and Tome makes you MAD because of how Warlock works now--though I did find a neat interaction there. I'll get to that at the end). Agree with the feedback that Twinned Spell is unrecognizable. If they thought it was too strong to keep in the game, sure, but it's sufficiently different enough that a rename is in order. Repeated Spell? Echoed Spell?

Wizard barely changed. Create Spell is stupid expensive, but it kinda has to be. (1000gp times the level of the spell; by way of comparison, a Simulacrum's powdered ruby consumed by that spell is 1500gp. It's more expensive to create a new second-level spell than it is to cast Simulacrum.) At that point, if anyone can actually find an abusable interaction with Create Spell, kudos to them, but good luck getting enough money to pull it off--unless you find an infinite wealth exploit, too, but at that point that's a bigger problem in its own right than anything Create Spell did. And since it keys off Modify Spell, which is pretty tame in what it allows IMO, I ultimately gave up looking for a way to break it. As for Modify Spell, my first instinct was to use it to buff Counterspell, actually--the 60ft range is a big drawback on it in some scenarios, and the ability to permanently make it Subtle more or less is also pretty appealing. A few have brought up some spells that could probably be much stronger by being Modified into rituals, though I haven't thought that through as much. Using it to make certain spells concentration-proof is also a good use, but here's the catch: it only applies to one spell at a time unless you can pull off Create Spell, which means if you want to effectively concentrate on other things, you have to still invest in things like CON save proficiency and other forms of concentration protection. But if you do that, you're getting less value out of the concentration-proofing Modification, as you'd more likely have been able to do without it. And then the other things Modify Spell can do that you gave up to concentration-proof one spell look better in comparison than they did. Catch-22. It's still probably worth it depending on the situation, but not as much of an "auto-lock" option as I thought at first glance, I think.

Warlock... yeah, I'm not surprised people are mad. Watching them remove Pact Magic was a bit like euthanizing a pet (sorry if that's any of y'all). You did what needed to be done, but that doesn't make it not suck. Having too much of a gap between which classes benefit more or less from a short rest is a source of intraparty grief that doesn't need to be there. Makes me wonder how they're going to handle Ki (aside from renaming it like they've talked about). Anyway, the actual class seems... fine? Better AC, Blade Pact seems actually good now outside of Hexblades, Tome can switch out Agonizing Blast at 5, Chain seems like kind of a wash (note the Familiar doesn't seem to be able to take the Help action in combat, RAW; but rolling Voice of the Chain Master in baseline helps, as does Favor of the Chain Master for adding some value to the familiar's attacks which are otherwise quite underwhelming), weaker spellcasting unless you invest a few invocations in Mystic Arcanum (which comes online much earlier and you can swap out the choice you made on level up), but more frequency in casting leveled spells in that T2 range where current Warlocks have to make some painful choices about what to cast and when. I think it's perfectly fair to mourn a bit if your idea of Warlock's playstyle is an archer-esque cantrip spammer that occasionally throws in a big nuclear spell and then gets spare utility from leftover invocations and the pact/subclass; I think describing this as "nerfed to the ground" is way too knee-jerk, however. I do think UA Warlock's day is probably a bit more varied than current Warlock. I would definitely have to spend some table time before deciding on an opinion or solution suggestion here. Maybe keep Pact Magic's slot progression, add in a flat 2-ish slots at most levels, throw in a couple low-level slots as well for stuff like Shield, and then key it off a long rest? I don't know.

---

An interesting parallel between discussions in this and another community I'm in is the nature of user feedback. As a general rule for software, users are really good at explaining what feels bad about XYZ thing, but are notoriously not so good when it comes to actually suggesting good solutions. There's a ton of arcane background stuff that breaks in unexpected ways if you make even a seemingly innocent change and don't test thoroughly. I imagine TTRPG designers, if you caught them off the record, might say the same thing. I'm not saying anyone here is being outright rude or mean, but I do sense a lot of frustration with the UAs we've gotten to date. I just... wanna tell people it's gonna be okay.

I mentioned finding a fun Sorlock interaction. Here it is. If you go into Warlock and grab Tome pact, one of the things it does at Warlock 5 is adds your Warlock spellcasting ability modifier to your cantrip damage--and this wording is important--that doesn't already have that modifier added to its damage roll. Tomelocks use INT or WIS to cast, Sorcerers use CHA. You could theoretically be a MAD Draconic Sorcerer 6/Warlock 5, cast Sorcerous Burst (or another cantrip that matches your Draconic damage type), and add both CHA and INT/WIS to the damage roll. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Is it cool to think about? I think so.

BeholderEyeDr

2023-04-27, 04:36 PM

Pixel_Kitsune

2023-04-27, 04:37 PM

Book of Shadows, I don't see anywhere where you can add new Rituals (or ever replace the 2 you start with). I'm either blind (please help) or that's a massive de-powering of the Pact Boon.

The specific text "When the book appears select" 2 Cantrips and 2 Ritual Spells you don't already have prepared. The book goes away when you recast. Everytime you Cast that Cantrip you select 2 Cantrips and 2 Ritual spells. You don't "start" with two, you have access to every 1st level Ritual in the game so long as you can find an hour of down time.

OTOH, the 5th level ability to boost damage on cantrips applies to any cantrip as far as I can see, not just EB. With all the thread's current talk about Sorcerous Burst, a Warlock 5/Sorc 1 seems interesting (well, probably something like W5/S11 for 3d6+5... though given Tome is Cha based, it's be pretty MAD to be effective... good job WotC).

Sadly won't work with Tome as Tome is Int or Wis specific, but in general should be fun.

animorte

2023-04-27, 04:48 PM

An interesting parallel between discussions in this and another community I'm in is the nature of user feedback. As a general rule for software, users are really good at explaining what feels bad about XYZ thing, but are notoriously not so good when it comes to actually suggesting good solutions. There's a ton of arcane background stuff that breaks in unexpected ways if you make even a seemingly innocent change and don't test thoroughly. I imagine TTRPG designers, if you caught them off the record, might say the same thing. I'm not saying anyone here is being outright rude or mean, but I do sense a lot of frustration with the UAs we've gotten to date. I just... wanna tell people it's gonna be okay.
Nicely put.

I've been somewhat keeping up with this thread and concerns. I'll present some of my own after I've had time to read more in-depth and actually play around with the stuff. Somebody mentioned a few pages ago that they're transferring a character over to see how that looks/feels. That's something I do almost every time as much as I can. I also sit and compare notes between the UA and pre-existing 5e just to be aware of exactly what changed.

Theodoxus

2023-04-27, 05:44 PM

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 05:48 PM

Well, the 5E version (Book of Ancient Secrets) allows you to add additional rituals, so I guess if you wanted to replicate it, you'd need to grab Ritual Casters as a poor substitute feat tax.

I think I'd personally take every 1st level ritual vs two 1st level rituals and the possibility of adding others later (something that may not even happen)

Zevox

2023-04-27, 05:51 PM

I think I'd personally take every 1st level ritual vs two 1st level rituals and the possibility of adding others later (something that may not even happen)
I wouldn't, because the latter isn't limited to 1st level.

I hadn't even noticed that the Tome no longer let you add rituals to it. +1 to my reasons to not like this Warlock rework, then.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 05:52 PM

I think I'd personally take every 1st level ritual vs two 1st level rituals and the possibility of adding others later (something that may not even happen)

It's a matter of taste maybe, but the one character I had ritual caster on, ended up using it mostly for Magic Mouth, LTH and Phantom Steed, none of which are lvl 1.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 05:56 PM

It's a matter of taste maybe, but the one character I had ritual caster on, ended up using it mostly for Magic Mouth, LTH and Phantom Steed, none of which are lvl 1.

Yeah, but you can now just take them as spells and ritual cast them, they're on the Arcane list, right?

Garfunion

2023-04-27, 05:57 PM

I like what they have done with the warlock except for the spell casting. I’ve thought of an ideal for an alternative pact magic. You have two types of pact magic lesser and greater. Lesser pact magic will end up giving a level 20 warlock 10 spell slots up casted to 2nd level. While greater pact magic will end up giving a level 20 warlock 5 spell slots up casted to 5th level. An overall total of 15 spell slots. Spell slot recover is done over a long rest. An invocation will exist to provide a feature similar to arcane recovery.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 06:41 PM

Yeah, but you can now just take them as spells and ritual cast them, they're on the Arcane list, right?

That's true, my PC had Ritual Caster (Wizard) not the pact of the tome, I'd have to check which rituals are on other lists, which would be the ones Book of Ancient Secrets used to open up.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 07:06 PM

Help me out here. Near as I can tell, the only difference is that the UA Hex damage is once per turn. No other changes. Is that what everyone dislikes?

EDIT: that and extra damage on an upcast for the UA version. Seems like a decent trade to me, assuming you can upcast it.

The bolded bit is actually the sneakiest nerf of all.

Old!Hex had some natural scaling because your spell slots auto-upgraded. On top of that, the extra duration meant that it got "cheaper" as you leveled up — by the time it lasts 8 hours it's pretty much going to last for all but the longest adventuring days, so your 5th level Warlock is only spending a single one of their (short rest) spell slots on Hex.

Contrast that with the new!Warlock, who doesn't get the first duration/damage upgrade until 9th level, and using it eats one of your top-tier spell slots for the day. If you want to use the maxed out version (which the old Warlock would've gotten for free at 9th level), you have to wait until 17th level and it will eat up your single 5th level spell slot. Ouch!

...

I've been crunching some numbers, and annoyingly Bladelocks still drag behind Blastlocks in the damage department. WotC still seems to underestimate how powerful getting additional attacks is, and so the Bladelock is still undertuned. Heck, a Bladelock with a max-level Hex AND Lifedrinker is barely ahead of Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast with no buffs, and still falls behind in Tier 4. I mean, there's actually a glorious moment at 9th and 10th levels where the blinged out Bladelock is far ahead on damage, but that's just because they got their 11th level damage boost at 9th level.

I feel like, if Bladelocks are going to be offered as an equally viable approach to playing Warlocks, Eldritch Blast needs to be nerfed a little, and Hex needs to be buffed to compensate. Maybe, I dunno, Eldritch Blast deals 1d8 damage per bolt, and Hex is just a class feature that gives you +1d6/+2d6/+3d6 damage on the first successful attack you make each turn against creatures affected by a spell you're concentrating on? Swap Hex out for Bane as the Warlock's "free spell", and be happy.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 07:15 PM

That's true, my PC had Ritual Caster (Wizard) not the pact of the tome, I'd have to check which rituals are on other lists, which would be the ones Book of Ancient Secrets used to open up.

I remember looking over the rituals a while back and was underwhelmed. There were a couple stand outs like Augry and Divination, but was about it (besides the usual stand outs, detect magic, identify, LTH, etc), for me at least.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 07:16 PM

I hate to say it, but I'm coming around on the warlock 1/2 caster + invocations model. I like that with a decent mystic arcanum investment, you can keep up with a full caster, but you don't have to. But what I'd like to see is better base class support for other options: that with sufficient invocation investment, I could become a passable warrior or expert (with suitable warlock flavor). Obviously there's dangers in terms of being too good with too little investment, or too good at too many things, but I think it's actually a really cool foundation to build a really customizable class based on the gifts your patron(s) has bestowed upon you. Then the subclasses can continue to work as-is, providing flavor and general cool abilities, agnostic of your specific build choices. As someone who actually hates the 5E warlock, I think if they could pull this off, it would be really freaking cool.

I was thinking about this earlier too. I'm a little surprised by how much I like the idea.

snip
Bladelocks still drag behind Blastlocks in the damage department
snip

So one thing I've noticed on this forum: we all have a tendency to hyper focus on numbers; specifically, damage numbers. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but just like with sorcerous burst, there are advantages outside of raw damage. Maybe not in this specific bladelock vs blastlock comparison. I don't know, I haven't looked that closely. But I think we all could do well to step back and consider things outside of raw numbers.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 07:18 PM

The bolded bit is actually the sneakiest nerf of all.

Old!Hex had some natural scaling because your spell slots auto-upgraded. On top of that, the extra duration meant that it got "cheaper" as you leveled up — by the time it lasts 8 hours it's pretty much going to last for all but the longest adventuring days, so your 5th level Warlock is only spending a single one of their (short rest) spell slots on Hex.

Contrast that with the new!Warlock, who doesn't get the first duration/damage upgrade until 9th level, and using it eats one of your top-tier spell slots for the day. If you want to use the maxed out version (which the old Warlock would've gotten for free at 9th level), you have to wait until 17th level and it will eat up your single 5th level spell slot. Ouch!

...

I've been crunching some numbers, and annoyingly Bladelocks still drag behind Blastlocks in the damage department. WotC still seems to underestimate how powerful getting additional attacks is, and so the Bladelock is still undertuned. Heck, a Bladelock with a max-level Hex AND Lifedrinker is barely ahead of Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast with no buffs, and still falls behind in Tier 4. I mean, there's actually a glorious moment at 9th and 10th levels where the blinged out Bladelock is far ahead on damage, but that's just because they got their 11th level damage boost at 9th level.

I feel like, if Bladelocks are going to be offered as an equally viable approach to playing Warlocks, Eldritch Blast needs to be nerfed a little, and Hex needs to be buffed to compensate. Maybe, I dunno, Eldritch Blast deals 1d8 damage per bolt, and Hex is just a class feature that gives you +1d6/+2d6/+3d6 damage on the first successful attack you make each turn against creatures affected by a spell you're concentrating on? Swap Hex out for Bane as the Warlock's "free spell", and be happy.

The Bladelock can get a Flame Tongue, or a +3 weapon, from experience its far less common to find magical gear that buffs your spells than magical weaponry, which is usually stardard by T2 if not earlier.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 07:24 PM

The Bladelock can get a Flame Tongue, or a +3 weapon, from experience its far less common to find magical gear that buffs your spells than magical weaponry, which is usually stardard by T2 if not earlier.

Also various spells can help more in melee than ranged. Blade cantrips, magic/elemental weapon, haste, etc

MinimanMidget

2023-04-27, 07:49 PM

one thing I've noticed on this forum: we all have a tendency to hyper focus on numbers; specifically, damage numbers. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but just like with sorcerous burst, there are advantages outside of raw damage. Maybe not in this specific bladelock vs blastlock comparison. I don't know, I haven't looked that closely. But I think we all could do well to step back and consider things outside of raw numbers.

You mean things like being able to fight at range instead of endangering yourself in melee? Things like the additional utility offered by the other pacts? Non-numerical comparisons are vastly more damning of bladelock than just looking at damage numbers.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 08:16 PM

So one thing I've noticed on this forum: we all have a tendency to hyper focus on numbers; specifically, damage numbers. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but just like with sorcerous burst, there are advantages outside of raw damage. Maybe not in this specific bladelock vs blastlock comparison. I don't know, I haven't looked that closely. But I think we all could do well to step back and consider things outside of raw numbers.

Nope! The Blastlock has the full advantage here, because they're at range (and can pick up Repelling Blast to do save-free repositioning shenanigans, while Bladelocks... don't get that? They don't get that.)

It's not like this is a situation where Bladelocks balance out lower damage by having cool alternate tricks (like, say, the Monk getting Stunning Strike, or a Tavern Brawler Barbarian getting bonus action grappling as a control option). This is a case of Bladelocks starting off in a worse situation (lower damage, having to be in melee with just a d8 HD and medium armor, no extra tricks) and paying through the nose to be roughly as good as what the Blastlock gets for free. As for "but the Bladelock gets buffed by finding magic weapons"... here's the thing: the damage gulf is so big that, by Tier 3, giving a Blastlock a +1 spell focus (an uncommon magic item) and the Bladelock a +3 weapon (a very rare magic item) results in the two of them dealing comparable damage.

To put this in perspective, the following two builds deal approximately the same amount of damage:

Tier 3 Warlock with Pact of the Blade, Lifedrinker, and a +3 Longsword.
Tier 3 Warlock with Pact of the Tome and a +1 Spell Focus.

The one advantage the first Warlock has over the second one (the fact that they get a little bit of vampiric healing each turn) is overshadowed by the fact that the second Warlock is at range (so gets hurt less, meaning they don't need the healing), has one extra Invocation, and didn't need to get their hands on a very rare magic weapon just to keep up.

And when I say "keep up", I mean it — the Bladelock is a Warlock that dumped their resources into being "good" at dealing damage in melee (instead of getting a cool buddy or access to every 1st level ritual), but needs a 1st level Hex in order to be within spitting distance of a non-raging Barbarian or non-smiting sword-and-board (AKA not damage focused) Paladin, which are basically the bare minimum when it comes to dealing damage in melee. Except both of those classes bring stuff other than damage to the "being in melee" table, while the Warlock... doesn't.

(Also, why did you feel the need to call out me specifically about focusing on damage and ignoring other factors? Seriously.)

Also various spells can help more in melee than ranged. Blade cantrips, magic/elemental weapon, haste, etc

This is true... but then the question becomes "is it better to cast a weapon buff/haste on the Warlock, or one of the actual martial characters in the party?"

SCAGtrips are a good point... except that Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade aren't on the Arcane spell list. :p Assuming that they do end up on there, though... a Bladelock with Lifedrinker deals less damage with Booming Blade than the Tomelock does with Eldritch Blast, and that's assuming that your target is stupid and always triggers the secondary damage of Booming Blade. And the Bladelock has to be close enough to kiss their target, while the Eldritch Blast user can hang out far away from the front lines (probably sipping tea or something).

Oramac

2023-04-27, 08:18 PM

You mean things like being able to fight at range instead of endangering yourself in melee? Things like the additional utility offered by the other pacts? Non-numerical comparisons are vastly more damning of bladelock than just looking at damage numbers.

More like what RukeInikov and Hurrashane pointed out. And as the forever DM myself, being at range instead of melee won't help you if the NPC decides you're the biggest threat.

Regardless, I'm not really speaking specifically to the blade/blast lock comparison, but more as a whole across the UAs. It's easy to get hung up on numbers, but it's more useful to keep the non-numerical comparisons in mind as well.

Gignere

2023-04-27, 08:19 PM

Nope! The Blastlock has the full advantage here, because they're at range (and can pick up Repelling Blast to do save-free repositioning shenanigans, while Bladelocks... don't get that? They don't get that.)

It's not like this is a situation where Bladelocks balance out lower damage by having cool alternate tricks (like, say, the Monk getting Stunning Strike, or a Tavern Brawler Barbarian getting bonus action grappling as a control option). This is a case of Bladelocks starting off in a worse situation (lower damage, having to be in melee with just a d8 HD and medium armor, no extra tricks) and paying through the nose to be roughly as good as what the Blastlock gets for free. As for "but the Bladelock gets buffed by finding magic weapons"... here's the thing: the damage gulf is so big that, by Tier 3, giving a Blastlock a +1 spell focus (an uncommon magic item) and the Bladelock a +3 weapon (a very rare magic item) results in the two of them dealing comparable damage.

To put this in perspective, the following two builds deal approximately the same amount of damage:

Tier 3 Warlock with Pact of the Blade, Lifedrinker, and a +3 Longsword.
Tier 3 Warlock with Pact of the Tome and a +1 Spell Focus.

The one advantage the first Warlock has over the second one (the fact that they get a little bit of vampiric healing each turn) is overshadowed by the fact that the second Warlock is at range (so gets hurt less, meaning they don't need the healing), has one extra Invocation, and didn't need to get their hands on a very rare magic weapon just to keep up.

And when I say "keep up", I mean it — the Bladelock is a Warlock that dumped their resources into being "good" at dealing damage in melee (instead of getting a cool buddy or access to every 1st level ritual), but needs a 1st level Hex in order to be within spitting distance of a non-raging Barbarian or non-smiting sword-and-board (AKA not damage focused) Paladin, which are basically the bare minimum when it comes to dealing damage in melee. Except both of those classes bring stuff other than damage to the "being in melee" table, while the Warlock... doesn't.

(Also, why did you feel the need to call out me specifically about focusing on damage and ignoring other factors? Seriously.)

I think if you used a greatsword the damage would be closer. Magic weapons can become your pact weapon, so a magic greatsword is likely what they might be balancing for if all you care about is damage.

Edit: Nevermind they nerfed that interaction too. Haha. Yeah blade pact needs some love.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 08:23 PM

And when I say "keep up", I mean it — the Bladelock is a Warlock that dumped their resources into being "good" at dealing damage in melee (instead of getting a cool buddy or access to every 1st level ritual), but needs a 1st level Hex in order to be within spitting distance of a non-raging Barbarian or non-smiting sword-and-board (AKA not damage focused) Paladin, which are basically the bare minimum when it comes to dealing damage in melee. Except both of those classes bring stuff other than damage to the "being in melee" table, while the Warlock... doesn't.

Neither of those classes bring the remotest possibility of 6+ level spells. Which, admittedly, the blastlock also brings. But again, being at range isn't the chasm of an advantage you think it is, unless your DM is just being nice. One thing I love to remind my players: anything they can do, the monsters can also do. I'm happy to entertain shenanigans, so long as the players are willing to fight against their own shenanigans from time to time.

EDIT: and again, my point here isn't this specific comparison. It's that the numbers don't always paint the entire picture.

(Also, why did you feel the need to call out me specifically about focusing on damage and ignoring other factors? Seriously.)

You happened to be the one who posted the blade/blast comparison. I wasn't calling you out. Not intentionally, anyway. Just making an observation.

Amechra

2023-04-27, 08:29 PM

Yeah, but the Warlock doesn't have to be in melee to bring 6th level spells to the table, and is in fact wasting resources that could be spent bringing more higher level spells to the table.

You happened to be the one who posted the blade/blast comparison. I wasn't calling you out. Not intentionally, anyway. Just making an observation.

If you want to make an observation without it seeming like a call-out, don't make it a direct reply to someone else. Make it a general comment.

As a general internet thing, replying directly to someone with a semi-related observation is a standard technique for insulting someone while maintaining plausible deniability if someone tries to call you on it. Now, I'm reasonably sure that that wasn't your intent, but that's why I'm reacting the way I am.

Hurrashane

2023-04-27, 08:34 PM

It'd be nice to have eldritch smite as an invocation again, or is it technically still available as it's from another book?

Though I wouldn't mind it being reworked a bit to make it different from a paladin's smite.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 08:34 PM

Theodoxus

2023-04-27, 08:36 PM

But what I'd like to see is better base class support for other options: that with sufficient invocation investment, I could become a passable warrior or expert (with suitable warlock flavor). Obviously there's dangers in terms of being too good with too little investment, or too good at too many things, but I think it's actually a really cool foundation to build a really customizable class based on the gifts your patron(s) has bestowed upon you. Then the subclasses can continue to work as-is, providing flavor and general cool abilities, agnostic of your specific build choices. As someone who actually hates the 5E warlock, I think if they could pull this off, it would be really freaking cool.

I was thinking about that last night, how the 3.x Warlock could basically use their powers to emulate a warrior or expert a bit better than the 5E version could. I'd love for an Eldritch Blast Invocation to create an Eldritch Glaive, allowing for all the EB options to work on it - Agonizing Blast to add ability mod to each attack; Eldritch Spear to increase the melee range to 15'; Repelling Blast to grant the Push weapon mastery, etc. Invocations are a great opportunity to expand warlock options without generating cookie cutter builds. If I were playing a melee focused LocKnight, I'd be less inclined to go with any Arcanum at all, freeing up those invocations for more melee goodness. It'd be fun to homebrew more Invocations for the less magically inclined Warlocks.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 08:38 PM

It'd be fun to homebrew more Invocations for the less magically inclined Warlocks.

Agreed! I love the invocation system. Enough that I've used it under different names in a few on my homebrew classes. It's a fantastic way to offer incredible customizability without totally breaking everything else.

Oramac

2023-04-27, 08:50 PM

An interesting observation for the Pact Weapon spell: a conjured weapon must be a melee weapon, but by the wording a magical weapon doesn't have to be a melee weapon.

Tracing arcane sigils in the air, you conjure a Simple or Martial melee weapon of your choice in your outstretched hand, or you create a bond with a magic weapon you touch.

I'm sure this is not RAI, but I'd take this to mean you could use a bow or some other ranged weapon as your pact weapon, so long as it is magical.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-27, 09:10 PM

I was thinking about that last night, how the 3.x Warlock could basically use their powers to emulate a warrior or expert a bit better than the 5E version could. I'd love for an Eldritch Blast Invocation to create an Eldritch Glaive, allowing for all the EB options to work on it - Agonizing Blast to add ability mod to each attack; Eldritch Spear to increase the melee range to 15'; Repelling Blast to grant the Push weapon mastery, etc. Invocations are a great opportunity to expand warlock options without generating cookie cutter builds. If I were playing a melee focused LocKnight, I'd be less inclined to go with any Arcanum at all, freeing up those invocations for more melee goodness. It'd be fun to homebrew more Invocations for the less magically inclined Warlocks.

While reading the weapon properties I was thinking to myself they must for use be turning invocations into this features, but I was surprised to se Repelling blast knocks back 10 ft instead of granting the Push ability.

Theodoxus

2023-04-27, 09:14 PM

An interesting observation for the Pact Weapon spell: a conjured weapon must be a melee weapon, but by the wording a magical weapon doesn't have to be a melee weapon.

I'm sure this is not RAI, but I'd take this to mean you could use a bow or some other ranged weapon as your pact weapon, so long as it is magical.

The 2014 Pact of the Blade uses the exact same wording. You could always turn any magical weapon into a pact weapon.

While reading the weapon properties I was thinking to myself they must for use be turning invocations into this features, but I was surprised to se Repelling blast knocks back 10 ft instead of granting the Push ability.

Yeah, it seems odd to create 'Keywords' but only use them for one feature, when they're handy shorthand. I wonder if WotC will propagate them into other areas if/when weapon mastery makes the cut.

Pex

2023-04-27, 09:29 PM

It seems weird that sorcery is prepared casting. I'll have to do a more in depth read to see if wizards and sorcerers have a diverse class identity.

The difference is Sorcerers pick their spells but they are fixed. They do not change except choosing to swap on level up. Wizards have the same number chosen for the day, but they get to swap out spells each game day. Those spells remain in their spellbook to be chosen some other day if wanted. It's a choice between do you know and only want certain spells forever or do you like the versatility of changing spells that suits your whimsy of the day or adapt to known dangers that change day to day. As flavor, Sorcerers use metamagic to alter spells on the fly while Wizards can now change spells permanently to suit their fancy while still having the original spell.

The good news is neither is bound by must prepare spells in equal number to spell slots that the previous spellcasters had. Whether they've changed their mind and letting all spellcasters do this again or it's exclusive to these and those classes are still bound by spell slots is unknown.

Psyren

2023-04-27, 09:30 PM

On the bladelock vs. blastlock discussion: you can be a ranged bladelock just fine (even before ranged magical weapons come online) - just create a thrown weapon. The weapon returns to your hand after each throw, so you'll get all your attacks (using your mental stat to hit and damage.) Sure the range is shorter, but (a) you have the AC for it, and (b) you don't need Agonizing Blast on a Bladelock either. And because you're making an actual weapon, you can get the Mastery properties either via the Weapon Mastery feat or by dipping a Warrior class. Sure, Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast might be 1d10+Cha force damage per shot, but a Pact Handaxe with Weapon Master has Vex on it :smallsmile:

(Honestly, I think there should be an invocation that unlocks the Mastery for a Bladelock's pact weapon.)

Kane0

2023-04-27, 09:33 PM

Huzzah, look at this lovely thrown weapon support.

Pex

2023-04-27, 10:47 PM

Regarding making Warlock a half caster, I too mourn the loss of a unique casting mechanic. I also agree that simply adding a 3rd slot at 5th level would be sufficient. Though it would allow throwing 9+ fireballs a day... something the Fiend can almost do in 5E... and I've never seen Fiend be particularly popular for it, so...

Perhaps overlooked by many, UA Fiend Warlock does not have Fireball.

Theodoxus

2023-04-27, 11:07 PM

Perhaps overlooked by many, UA Fiend Warlock does not have Fireball.

That's because it doesn't need to be... it's on the Arcane spell list.

Pex

2023-04-27, 11:09 PM

If I had my druthers, Wizards would be full casters that "cap out" early unless you fully dedicate yourself to study (AKA are an NPC or are in a game with a ton of downtime), make questionable pacts, or sacrifice your (demi-)humanity in some way. In exchange, you've got your big book o' spells and the ability to tinker with them.

Warlock says hi.

ProsecutorGodot

2023-04-27, 11:09 PM

That's because it doesn't need to be... it's on the Arcane spell list.

It would be pretty strong if it was still on the fiend list too, let's not forget they get to cast one of those spells for free once a rest.

Hael

2023-04-27, 11:13 PM

I've been crunching some numbers, and annoyingly Bladelocks still drag behind Blastlocks in the damage department. WotC still seems to underestimate how powerful getting additional attacks is, and so the Bladelock is still undertuned. Heck, a Bladelock with a max-level Hex AND Lifedrinker is barely ahead of Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast with no buffs, and still falls behind in Tier 4. I mean, there's actually a glorious moment at 9th and 10th levels where the blinged out Bladelock is far ahead on damage, but that's just because they got their 11th level damage boost at 9th level..

Hex is a bad spell. It was a bad spell in the prenerfed state. You are overwhelmingly better casting a summoning spell for damage, or SS, or darkness/DS or Shadow of Moil. Moreover, the only reason Hexblades were doing better than martial damage in 5.0 was because of 1 particular build, that exploited accuracy calculations (Self Advantage + EA + Curse + GWM/SS + PAM/CBE + Sadness + Smites).

But without -5/+10 this sort of thing is already completely nerfed, and bladelocks (ranged or martial) will be doing substantially less damage than a comparable martial, and will be basically equivalent to a blastlock (who has much less invocation penalty).

If on top of that, they remove weapon mastery from Gishes (which is a distinct possibility IMO), then yea, its even more likely to be a build trap.

Arkhios

2023-04-27, 11:13 PM

Perhaps overlooked by many, UA Fiend Warlock does not have Fireball.

Doesn't need to have, since Warlocks use Arcane Spell List and it's in there in general.

Jerrykhor

2023-04-27, 11:20 PM

Doesn't need to have, since Warlocks use Arcane Spell List and it's in there in general.

True, but they can't even give us the free Fireball for the day. Though i think most people would get it early from Mystic Arcanum.

Pex

2023-04-27, 11:28 PM

I feel like the core use case for the 7th level ability will be to swap out the mastery on your magic weapon to one that fits your style better. Which in published adventures is definitely a thing that is going to happen. Longswords have pretty much the least interesting base mastery and are one of the most common magic weapons found.

Its less value in a game where the DM hands out weapons tailored to what the members of the party already use and want.

They must have foreseen the Pole Arm thread.

Help me out here. Near as I can tell, the only difference is that the UA Hex damage is once per turn. No other changes. Is that what everyone dislikes?

EDIT: that and extra damage on an upcast for the UA version. Seems like a decent trade to me, assuming you can upcast it.

Yes because Eldritch Blast + Hex is a favorite. Bladelocks like original Hex for their two attacks. I appreciate they increase the damage, but it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose the increased damage will help incentivize some players choosing other damaging cantrips. Even though they get Eldritch Blast for free unless you're Tome you have to take Agonizing Blast. If you're more willing to use another damaging cantrip because of new Hex you save yourself an invocation. This helps spellcaster multiclassers who will get 5th level spell slots anyway.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-28, 12:39 AM

They must have foreseen the Pole Arm thread.

Yes because Eldritch Blast + Hex is a favorite. Bladelocks like original Hex for their two attacks. I appreciate they increase the damage, but it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose the increased damage will help incentivize some players choosing other damaging cantrips. Even though they get Eldritch Blast for free unless you're Tome you have to take Agonizing Blast. If you're more willing to use another damaging cantrip because of new Hex you save yourself an invocation. This helps spellcaster multiclassers who will get 5th level spell slots anyway.

Yeah, with EB scaling of Lock level alone, unless you go to Lock 5, Firebolt is gonna be better. If you go to Lock 5, and are not a Tomelock, AB with Cha 20, is about as good as 4d10 Firebolt, but given you may be able to improve Firebolt from your other classes features, EB is not gonna necesarily be the best cantrip.

On another note, does anyone find the wording in Quicken Spell a bit odd? If the UA is to be used with 2014 PHB rules, then that's already covered by the bonus action spells rule, I guess its just to avoid discussions on if QS allows you to bypass that limitation.

lall

2023-04-28, 01:05 AM

Arcane Apotheosis is wonderful. Made me go to the dictionary:

“the highest point in the development of something; culmination or climax.
"his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career"

&

“the perfect form or example of something”.

I’m guessing the word choice came from Crawford? Love that guy. Also reminds me of Tool’s Fear Inoculum, where I had to go to the dictionary for inoculum, allegorical, and elegy.

Anyway, Arcane Apotheosis is potentially the most powerful ability in the history of D&D, but like with the Wish spell itself, I think DM’s will keep it in check. Hope it doesn’t end up on the cutting room floor. If it survives, sorcerer will be my favorite 5.5 class.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-28, 01:50 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2023-04-28, 01:51 AM

Anyway, Arcane Apotheosis is potentially the most powerful ability in the history of D&D, but like with the Wish spell itself, I think DM’s will keep it in check. Hope it doesn’t end up on the cutting room floor. If it survives, sorcerer will be my favorite 5.5 class.

Aside from the dictionary definition, it's also associated with divinity or the attainment of godhood.

It's honestly, in my opinion, the single best thing to come out of this playtest yet. Every capstone should be crazy strong like this. My only worry, which you rightfully point out, is that because its tied to Wish it's going to have all the same targets on its back that Wish does. Some people have an odd hate for Wish, though perhaps if they really do manage to make each class similarly impactful at this level that might lessen a bit. There's a lot of work to do in that regard though, as for a majority of the capstones we've seen now, this is so far above the rest in power that comparing them is almost laughable.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-28, 01:55 AM

Aside from the dictionary definition, it's also associated with divinity or the attainment of godhood.

It's honestly, in my opinion, the single best thing to come out of this playtest yet. Every capstone should be crazy strong like this. My only worry, which you rightfully point out, is that because its tied to Wish it's going to have all the same targets on its back that Wish does. Some people have an odd hate for Wish, though perhaps if they really do manage to make each class similarly impactful at this level that might lessen a bit. There's a lot of work to do in that regard though, as for a majority of the capstones we've seen now, this is so far above the rest in power that comparing them is almost laughable.

Oh, yeah, its one of the few things I mentioned, I think its insane, and I think that's perfect.

follacchioso

2023-04-28, 03:24 AM

I'm late to the discussion and I can't contribute much, but I just wanted to say that I really like this UA.

- Warlocks based on INT or WIS? This is a great step forward, it opens lots of RP possibilities, and it just makes sense. You can have the lovecraftian erudite who finds forbidden knowledge while studying books, and doesn't have the charisma to resist the corruption. It will also be interesting to see all those clerics and druids making a pact of the blade with an entity different than their Deity. My Swords bard would certainly get at least one level as blade warlock, and that would not cost much in terms of spell progression.

- Class features as cantrips and spells: I guess they are just trying different ways to word things, and see how the community responds. Personally I don't dislike it, it makes things more streamed. The wizard abilities in particular work well as spells, because they require concentration, and you can't cast other spells while creating a new one. It also makes it more clear that copying spells into the spellbook costs time and gold coins.

- Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks are now more distinct to each other . Sorcerer do not look like a poor copy of wizards, as they have access to specific cantrips and spells

- Weapon Mastery: I like that they are trying to make martial characters more fun, but I am worried this system may be too complex for new players. Since you still need a free interaction to unstow a weapon, I don't think this will lead to people switching weapons in combat.

- Creating new spells: my only question is that this seems to be limited by the amount of gold coins for the wizard. A character with an infinite amount of coins and time would be able to modify all the spells in the arcane list. DMs are notoriously bad at balancing treasure so it's going to be difficult to keep this feature balanced. It also makes it more complex to play one-shot high-character games, you'll really need to know the arcane spell list very well to understand what to modify and how.

Ninja Dragon

2023-04-28, 04:53 AM

Hael

2023-04-28, 05:04 AM

The new Indomitable is INSANELY good. Which is great considering it was one of the worst abilities the fighter had. Now fighters are better at making saves than monks, and at a lower level. Though only a few times per day.

Eh, at the level where the fighter gets it, saves are happening multiple times a fight, and the fighter will likely selectively keep it for the really bad things (dominate person etc). So its significantly less good than it appears due to its limited uses, and much less good than monk/paladin/Peace cleric type passives.

Otoh, it does reduce the really TPK level bad events from occurring, which is a positive.

animorte

2023-04-28, 05:39 AM

tokek

2023-04-28, 07:07 AM

tokek

2023-04-28, 07:10 AM

Eh, at the level where the fighter gets it, saves are happening multiple times a fight, and the fighter will likely selectively keep it for the really bad things (dominate person etc). So its significantly less good than it appears due to its limited uses, and much less good than monk/paladin/Peace cleric type passives.

Otoh, it does reduce the really TPK level bad events from occurring, which is a positive.

With the sheer number of feats fighters get it would not shock me to see a lot of fighters taking the new Mage Slayer feat and then taking resilient on a couple of key abilities too. The warrior who JUST DOES NOT GIVE UP is a staple of fantasy fiction and I think the new fighter can do that pretty well.

But the new fighter ability at 17 is insanely good. How good does depend on DM style and how much they let the player know what they are saving against, but realistically you normally assume that an enemy threw their most crippling thing at you the moment you are asked for a mental save.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-28, 07:17 AM

I usually like to sit with the UA for a while before giving my overall thoughts, so here we go:

Weapon Mastery System
I like the fact that Weapon Mastery helps differentiate weapons more. The Weapon Master features themselves I like. But they're being billed as the unifying feature for the Warrior group, and frankly they feel more like a long-overdue update to weapons themselves. The Weapon Mastery system should be open to other weapon-focused classes as well. As-is, I'm predicting a lot of Fighter 1/Other Class X builds, where you pick up the desired Masteries and a relevant fighting style for a 1-level dip instead of spending a slew of feats on them.

Nick specifically
Not having the extra attack for two-weapon fighting eat up a bonus action was one of my favorite things about the playtest material. It helped out Rangers and Rogues tremendously, because they could two-weapon fight and still have the bonus action for Hunter's Mark or Cunning Action. I'm very disappointed to see two-weapon fighting revert back to taking up the bonus action just so that other classes can have a feature that re-removes.

Feats
I'll be honest, I don't pay much attention to the 20th level feats. The vast majority of games never get there. And when we do one-shot 20th level adventures, we tend to hand out custom magic items to fulfill whatever character concept each player wants. (For our group, we have an annual 20th-level one-shot tradition, in which we have a pop-culture theme. Last year we did King Comics, with Flash Gordon, Popeye and Dennis the Menace.)

Barbarian
Seems more like tweaks than substantial changes. I'm fine with that. Primal Knowledge can get weird, but I think that weirdness comes from still calling it "Rage" when you use the feature. I'm quite sure players will lean into the "I'm so angry you can't see me!" joke. I do want to note that you still get the +4 Strength and +4 Constitution capstone; they've just split it so that you get half of it at level 18 and the other half at 20. So no overall loss there (in fact, you come out ahead for two levels).

Fighter
I know I'm far from the first to say it, but I would have liked to have seen Maneuvers become standard, with subclasses granting unique Maneuvers. Adding Weapon Mastery is a step in the right direction, but ultimately the novelty of that system will wear off. Give it a bit of time, and we'll all have determined the 'optimal' mastery options, and Fighter will go back to feeling like they just hit stuff, now with {insert optimal mastery options here}.

Sorcerer
They've really played into the 'chaos' aspect, with making all Sorcerers have Chaos Bolt and Sorcerous Burst. I guess you don't have to cast them if you aren't looking for chaos as part of your narrative. Still, it makes me think Chaos Sorcery may not be a subclass at all, since the chaos comes from the base class. I love the little bit of healing from Sorcerous Vitality. I think nerfing Twinned Spell was the right call, but I think they changed it to the point that they should call it something else. I do wonder if the original Twinned Spell metamagic is powerful enough to make people choose the 2014 Sorcerer over the new one.

Warlock
Going from Pact Magic to Half Caster (other half, also caster, but weird) makes this Warlock feel almost like a different class that happens to have some of the same non-casting features. The more I think on it, the more I think it's an okay change. I do miss the uniqueness of Pact Magic, but Warlock still has Invocations that set it apart from other casters. I do think the Pact Boon should be presented as features rather than Cantrips. What's the point of moving the text to the Spells section? They aren't saving any room; they're just moving where the exists. Making them spells seems needlessly complicated, and I'm not looking forward to having to go to an entirely different section of the book to see how my first level feature works.

Wizard
I love the fact that you get to modify and create customized spells. My biggest criticism on that system is that it takes too long to come online. I want to be able to modify spells right away! Maybe some of the options should be restricted to higher levels, but at least a little customization at low levels would be fun. My other criticism of the system goes back to the issue I had with Pact Boon. I see no advantage to making this system use spells. Other than those two points (comes online too late and overcomplicated by making them spells instead of features), I'm happy with the updated Wizard. Like Barbarian, the rest of the class seems like minor tweaks.

Theodoxus

2023-04-28, 08:02 AM

Barbarian
Seems more like tweaks than substantial changes. I'm fine with that. Primal Knowledge can get weird, but I think that weirdness comes from still calling it "Rage" when you use the feature. I'm quite sure players will lean into the "I'm so angry you can't see me!" joke. I do want to note that you still get the +4 Strength and +4 Constitution capstone; they've just split it so that you get half of it at level 18 and the other half at 20. So no overall loss there (in fact, you come out ahead for two levels).

I don't see it... 18th you get +2 to Str and Con. 20th you get +2 to Str OR Con, and then the Epic Boon is an additional +1 to one of two attributes which may or not be Str or Con depending on what you pick.

So, yes, there is an overall loss of at least 1 point, and possibly 2.

GooeyChewie

2023-04-28, 08:15 AM

I don't see it... 18th you get +2 to Str and Con. 20th you get +2 to Str OR Con, and then the Epic Boon is an additional +1 to one of two attributes which may or not be Str or Con depending on what you pick.

So, yes, there is an overall loss of at least 1 point, and possibly 2.

Mea culpa, I misread the 20th level one as being both Strength and Con, not one or the other. You are right, it is +4/+2 rather than +4/+4. Boo!

Segev

2023-04-28, 08:26 AM

The specific text "When the book appears select" 2 Cantrips and 2 Ritual Spells you don't already have prepared. The book goes away when you recast. Everytime you Cast that Cantrip you select 2 Cantrips and 2 Ritual spells. You don't "start" with two, you have access to every 1st level Ritual in the game so long as you can find an hour of down time.

Count me in as seeing the ability to add higher-level rituals as better than "all 1st level rituals, with an hour lead time," as being superior, both in terms of desirability and in terms of thematics. Once again, it feels like they're emphasizing how the PC is just a game token being controlled by a being (the player) who is not part of the world. This is less serious than the use of generic stat blobs, but it still feels more like a video game button than it does a thing where the tome is really a thing in its own right. Sure, you could always refluff the tome to be anything you wanted, but now it seriously doesn't need to be a book at all. After all, it's just...a magic wand that lets you cast four spells of your choosing.

There are things to like in this warlock rework. The half-caster thing and the way they're doing the Tome are not amongst them.

I like merging all the "spend a warlock spell slot" invocations into one general one. I suspect I would've had less issue with Mystic Arcanum in the first place if it'd been presented as this invocation in the past, so I also suspect I will warm up to this version of it with time and thought.

I severely dislike the "everything locked to class level" theme that's going on throughout. I acknowledge that this largely was a thing that eased multiclassing for casters, and had little impact on martials (who had the class level restriction built in in a lot of ways...except those which used proficiency bonus as a resource quantifier), but making multiclassing more unfriendly is just...not good, in my opinion. In 5.0, there is rarely a problem where multiclassing leaves you with all of your class features too weak to participate in the game. This is because the level-based scaling of cantrips and the combining scaling of multiclass spell slots made the cost of multiclassing casters being the highest level spells known, and martials really only felt a problem if they got more than one Extra Attack level (which I think is an issue that could have been addressed in OneD&D, but they seem to be going the opposite direction). For example, the Font of Magic sorcerer feature was already self-limited by the number of sorcery points the sorcerer had available; there is no need to keep the sorcerer from combining his sorcery points to make a spell slot higher level than his sorcerer class would allow. Even in the few circumstances where this allowed a single-classed sorcerer to make a spell slot that exceeded the character level limit for spell slots, this just made for more potent upcasting, which is generally not a problem, especially on the class whose entire theme was supposed to be "doing things with magic that nobody else could!"

Aimeryan

2023-04-28, 08:37 AM

I think nerfing Twinned Spell was the right call, but I think they changed it to the point that they should call it something else. I do wonder if the original Twinned Spell metamagic is powerful enough to make people choose the 2014 Sorcerer over the new one.

I didn't really find Twinned that powerful on a Sorcerer in 5e; most of the spells that might be good with it were ruled out (often arbritrarily), others had ways of going from single target to multi-target anyway, or the spells that would be particularly good were not on the Sorcerer list. This is because the best spells to Twin are usually buffs since single target damage spells are rare and single target debuffs are usually weaker than aoe versions due to reliability. Haste is an often cited example, but I find Haste to be a poor spell and often debilitating. The Sorcery Point cost really hurts high level spell Twinning too, which is usually what you want if you are going for 'impact now'. Really, I only particularly like it for Greater Invisibility in a party that really takes 'Advantage' of that.

Don't take me wrong, its not awful; its one of the better ones. However, I do not agree with WotC's assessment on it.

Oramac

2023-04-28, 08:44 AM

snip
Don't take me wrong, its not awful; its one of the better ones. However, I do not agree with WotC's assessment on it.

100% agreed. I like the majority of this UA, but on Twinned Spell, I think WOTC just flat out got it wrong. The 2014 Twinned was not broken and does not need to be changed.

Segev

2023-04-28, 08:46 AM

I didn't really find Twinned that powerful on a Sorcerer in 5e; most of the spells that might be good with it were ruled out (often arbritrarily), others had ways of going from single target to multi-target anyway, or the spells that would be particularly good were not on the Sorcerer list. This is because the best spells to Twin are usually buffs since single target damage spells are rare and single target debuffs are usually weaker than aoe versions due to reliability. Haste is an often cited example, but I find Haste to be a poor spell and often debilitating. The Sorcery Point cost really hurts high level spell Twinning too, which is usually what you want if you are going for 'impact now'. Really, I only particularly like it for Greater Invisibility in a party that really takes 'Advantage' of that.

Don't take me wrong, its not awful; its one of the better ones. However, I do not agree with WotC's assessment on it.

I agree with this assessment. Twin Spell is one of the few metamagics worth taking in the 5.0 version, and even then it was really limited. Metamagic is an area WotC is way, way too timid with, and I think it is part of the big overarching problem they have with not really knowing what they want the sorcerer to be.

The new version... it's bad because the real power of Twin Spell had little to do with "Casting two spells in a round." Seriously, the way 5.0 Twin Spell is crippled, all it really was was "+1 target." That's it. The real power of Twin Spell is that it let you affect two creatures with the same CONCENTRATION. The OneD&D version in this playtest is next to worthless, because the sp discount is just not worth the metamagic slot. Sure, if you got Twin Spell for free, it'd be worth using, possibly regularly, but it is not worth spending a resource to KNOW at this point. The discount is all it is giving you, and it isn't a big enough discount to be worth not taking any of the other competitively-useful metamagics (e.g. subtle, quicken, seeking, transmuted, or heighten) instead. And this is still without taking into account that you have to have a spell you want to spam at least two rounds in a row. This is not so unlikely as to never come up, but it is one more restriction that devalues this metamagic.

Hurrashane

2023-04-28, 08:55 AM

Segev

2023-04-28, 09:09 AM

Aimeryan

2023-04-28, 09:26 AM

I can see some use for new twinned spell. Used your last 3rd level slot on a fireball and want to do it again? Go nuts. Enemy succeeded on your spell by rolling high? Try again!

It'd be nice if they gave the re-cast a bit of a buff though, like a + caster level on it, that way it'll be more likely to land the second time.

Edit: I mean casting mod bonus, not sure why I said caster level

Usually, if you are blowing your high level slots you really want them to be impactful. If you are having to cast the spell again then it kind of failed. This is why single-target non-buff spells in general are not great - you don't want to blow your load for no or little effect.

If you cast Fireball at level 5 and there are still some things alive, is it worth casting again or just mopping up with some cantrips? If you are casting this at level 11, either the fight wasn't impactful enough to warrant a higher level spell or you are running low on resources... so probably don't want to cast it again.

The lower level spells relative to your character level tend to be situationally good, which this Metamagic doesn't favour. The higher level spells relative to your character level tend to demand being impactful, which if so don't require casting again. Maybe there are some mid level spells relative to your character level that you may want to cast and then cast the exact same spell again next round, maybe.

Now if Twinned let you cast a spell you had cast since the last Long Rest for a discount, sure. However, the limitations here are stifling it - once again.

Rukelnikov

2023-04-28, 09:50 AM

Oh, I agree, those are use cases. But the use case is not sufficient, to me, to justify spending a metamagic-known slot on it. You can already do this without the metamagic. It doesn't give you anything new you can do. IT doesn't make you better at the few spells you know than anybody from any other class. It just lets you cast it at a slight discount.

About the only thing it really does is make your odd-character-level highest-level spell slot get a second shot, under those very specific circumstances. And Font of Magic did that, already. So, again, this is just a discount. So, again, you're spending a very precious build resource for something that does...little.

I don't think a discount is something to disregard, at lvl 5 melting all your 1st and 2nd lvl slots for SP gives you a total of 15 SP (including the daily base of 5), if you spent it all to make 3rd lvl slots you'd have 5 of them. Using new!Twin you could make 1 slot for a total of 3, and recast the 3 of them, for a total of 6 castings. A 20% extra highest level slots ain't bad. A different way of seeing this is it allows the second casting to be done a slot level lower, since you usually pay 3 SP for a 2nd lvl slot, and this allows you to use 3 sp for a 3rd level one.

The thing is that the conditions for this discount make it difficult to justify those 6 castings, the only kind of spells you'll likely want to be casting one round after the other are no concentration combat spells, which are mostly damage, but maybe after the first Fireball by the time your next turn comes the combat doesn't seem threatening enough to warrant a second Fireball, so you didn't really get those discounts.

It'd probably be better if the MMs you applied to the previous casting carried over to the repeated one, so an Empowered Quickened Fireball can be recasted for "only 2 SP"

Now if Twinned let you cast a spell you had cast since the last Long Rest for a discount, sure. However, the limitations here are stifling it - once again.

I thought about this possibility, but I think it would have to be done the other way round, when you cast a spell you can "twin ir" by spending the SP cost at cast time, and it is you MM for that spell, whenever you want before your next long rest you can cast that spell again for free. That way at least it feels like you are modifying the spell, the other way it just feels like you recalled the spell.