[5R/5.5/One] Playtest Packet 6 Video

[Psyren]

EDIT: PLAYTEST PACKET IS UP! (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest6/OJVW7QLuHjEFCCVs/UA-2023-PH-Playtest6.pdf) (Updated to direct link for non DDB account holders.)

Not too much new to report here, but new video means new packet, likely tomorrow if they stick to their typical release pattern:

EDIT 2: The full video is out rather than just the overview, so I replaced it. You can rewatch the overview for posterity here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtfymlCjQw)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU4WXd7ijwU

Highlights:

1) Biggest packet yet, even bigger than the previous biggest packet (Playtest 5)
2) 7 classes (including Monk, finally, and Bard 2.0 as well) plus more revised spells
3) Confirmation that Rogue, Paladin, Ranger and Monk will be getting Weapon Mastery (Weapon Mastery is "beloved" per the previous survey)
4) Returning to 2014 subclass progressions, except keeping all classes entering at 3
5) Class capstones are moving back to 20th from 18th, including brand new ones. Epic Boons will be relegated to a future UA. (Bard's new 20th level feature, "Words of Creation", was teased.)
6) D&D 5e now has a default setting - The Multiverse, which will get referenced more openly in various features (e.g. more references to "The Shadowfell" and "The Feywild" which are multiversal concepts.)

Will update when the packet itself drops.

[ZRN]

3) Confirmation that Rogue, Paladin, Ranger and Monk will be getting Weapon Mastery (Weapon Mastery is "beloved" per the previous survey)


LOL, once again the cool new thing for fighters (and barbarians) becomes a cool new thing for everyone who can hold a stick.

[Melil12]

Rogue getting a new ability cunning strike.

[Psyren]

LOL, once again the cool new thing for fighters (and barbarians) becomes a cool new thing for everyone who can hold a stick.

Well, I'm fairly confident in saying that Fighter will still be the only one that can swap and combine properties, so they will still get uniqueness in this space that other martials don't.

[Warlock'sFriend]

I wonder if we'll see another go at the warlock class since it seems like most people were pretty unsatisfied with playtest5 version.

[GooeyChewie]

LOL, once again the cool new thing for fighters (and barbarians) becomes a cool new thing for everyone who can hold a stick.

I'm hoping the other classes get limited access to weapon mastery. I could see it only applying to finesse weapons for Rogues, for example. And I think it is necessary to prevent Fighter from becoming a nearly-required multiclass for those classes.

[Arkhios]

Not too much new to report here, but new video means new packet, likely tomorrow if they stick to their typical release pattern

It had better be tomorrow or at the very least the day after, because the coming weekend I'll be attending Tuska Open Air Metal Festival (the biggest one in Finland), and I'd be bummed to have to wait until after to look into this. Especially now that I have a lot of extra time on my hands at work, so much so that it's boring at work.

[Oramac]

And I think it is necessary to prevent Fighter from becoming a nearly-required multiclass for those classes.

This. If the other classes flat out don't get Mastery at all, it effectively creates a feat/multiclass tax on them. Also, I would venture to guess that the plan was always to give mastery to all martial classes; it just didn't get done until now because they all appeared in different UA packets.

Also, Epic Boons are gone! Thank God! How those abominations made it even this far is beyond me.

[Unoriginal]

Whoa, it took me a moment to recognize Crawford.

[False God]

I'm hoping the other classes get limited access to weapon mastery. I could see it only applying to finesse weapons for Rogues, for example. And I think it is necessary to prevent Fighter from becoming a nearly-required multiclass for those classes.

I think more to the point it's "Couldn't other classes have other cool things that define them as their own?" rather than "Rogue gets Fighter stuff but only sneaky-sneaky."

[Amechra]

Well, I'm fairly confident in saying that Fighter will still be the only one that can swap and combine properties, so they will still get uniqueness in this space that other martials don't.

Hopefully that will actually mean something going forward. Their take on that was... overly minimal... in the last playtest.

(Either that or scrap the Fighter and go "Surprise! We're going with the Warlord instead!"... but that's unlikely.)

[Dienekes]

Weapon Mastery: I’m wondering about the response. Conceptually it’s pretty cool. Implementation get pretty lacking. I’m curious if the audience embracing it will make them want to push the concept further or settle thinking they have it in a good place currently. Here’s hoping for the former.

Apparently all the half-martial classes are now also getting it. Which I’m fine with, though I truly wonder what the point of the “Warrior” group is. Is it now strictly relegated to Weapon Style feats that everyone who wants them gets anyway, and the Epic Boons? Makes it seem rather pointless.

Speaking of. Capstone back to 20: Fine. I have only played at this level in 5e one time. Don’t particularly care about it except for the abstract. And admittedly in the abstract I kinda thought Epic Boom at 20 would just make people want to multiclass more. But, again, I never play at this level so it’s pretty much irrelevant to me.

The Multiverse: Honestly, never really liked multiversal stuff anyway. Always feels like it diminishes the importance of actually concrete settings (with some fair few exceptions, I do quite like the new Spiderman movies, but have 0 interest in Kang and his plot in the Marvel movies in part for this reason).

I’ve always played D&D a step or five more grounded than the plane hopping multidimensional bombastic style this setting change will likely promote. But then, I also don’t use standard D&D settings beyond getting a quick shot of inspiration. So, I’m probably just going to ignore it.

Though I’ll admit my initial response to this announcement makes me think they’re choosing a standard setting by not actually choosing a standard setting.

[Amechra]

though I truly wonder what the point of the “Warrior” group is

Marketing. It's in the same grand tradition of them claiming stuff like "5e has a social pillar" (which is true... in the sense that the game gets that for free as a side effect of being a tabletop RPG).

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Weapon Mastery: I’m wondering about the response. Conceptually it’s pretty cool. Implementation get pretty lacking. I’m curious if the audience embracing it will make them want to push the concept further or settle thinking they have it in a good place currently. Here’s hoping for the former.

2) Apparently all the half-martial classes are now also getting it. Which I’m fine with, though I truly wonder what the point of the “Warrior” group is. Is it now strictly relegated to Weapon Style feats that everyone who wants them gets anyway, and the Epic Boons? Makes it seem rather pointless.

3) The Multiverse: Honestly, never really liked multiversal stuff anyway. Always feels like it diminishes the importance of actually concrete settings (with some fair few exceptions, I do quite like the new Spiderman movies, but have 0 interest in Kang and his plot in the Marvel movies in part for this reason).

I’ve always played D&D a step or five more grounded than the plane hopping multidimensional bombastic style this setting change will likely promote. But then, I also don’t use standard D&D settings beyond getting a quick shot of inspiration. So, I’m probably just going to ignore it.

4) Though I’ll admit my initial response to this announcement makes me think they’re choosing a standard setting by not actually choosing a standard setting.

Numbers added for ease of reference.

1. One of my big complaints about WotC is that they are super cautious about anything except spells. They only do tiny tiny, bland features. And Weapon Mastery is one that could have been great...except that it's basically "add a couple small numbers here and there."

2. Agreed. Again, the flow is one way only. Casters get martial goodies for free but martials have to spend major effort to get even the smallest bit of caster goodies.

3. Yeah. "Multiverse" is a great way to make me tune out because it inevitably means you're not actually putting effort into making any coherent worlds and are just throwing random stuff out and hand-waving any conflicts.

4. Agreed. More have your cake and eat it too sentiment. Which does not fill me with desire to hop on this train.

[MoiMagnus]

The Multiverse: Honestly, never really liked multiversal stuff anyway. Always feels like it diminishes the importance of actually concrete settings (with some fair few exceptions, I do quite like the new Spiderman movies, but have 0 interest in Kang and his plot in the Marvel movies in part for this reason).

While I do love large-scale multiversal plot, I also prefer them minimalist in the official setting.
In some ways, it's much easier to homebrew some multiversal stuff on top of a setting that doesn't have them.

Otherwise, you end up with problems like, for example, the mess that is "Magic the Gathering in D&D". The whole point of the MtG multiverse is that gods and most metaphysics are local to plans, and that planeswalker is something unique and very special. The MtG universe is absolutely perfect for crossover, as you can seamlessly include any universe as being a single plan in MtG. Except that D&D gives you explicit rules about travelling through the multiverse, with planeshift being a regular spell accessible to a large number of peoples, and generally a lot of design decisions in D&D that make it the authors of the books integrating MtG and D&D together decided to squeeze MtG into D&D rather than the other way around, breaking the MtG's plane-based cosmology.

And while it's easy to see how a multiversal setting can mess up non-multiversal plots, with stuff "why don't we just plane shift to heaven" when you try to keep the stakes grounded and local, but I also find it quite annoying when you try to run non-canonical multiversal plots.

[Psyren]

1) They did explicitly say they're going to keep iterating on Weapon Mastery but it's here to stay.

2) I don't think the existence of the multiverse somehow means you're forced to account for it or traverse it in every campaign. It's just there to explain why every official setting has a Plane of Shadow and a Feywild etc, and why spells and features that interact with those things function everywhere by default.

3) What I'm really hoping/excited for in this packet is Druid 2.0.

[Melil12]

I very much doubt Warlock will see any major changes in this UA. If they make any changes at all it will be minor as it will require more time.

I am hopeful for Druid 2.0/Rogue 2.0/Bard 2.0 and maybe Ranger. But they may have just updated them to reflect the addition of weapon mastery and minor changes through out.

I hold my breath to see what spells were revamped :-) and new subclasses.
Mercy monk
Celestial warlock
*crosses fingers*

[Psyren]

My prediction for the 7 classes:

Monk (confirmed)
Bard (confirmed
Rogue (confirmed)
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid

The remainder that won't be here are the three mage classes and the other two warriors.

[Oramac]

It had better be tomorrow or at the very least the day after, because the coming weekend I'll be attending Tuska Open Air Metal Festival (the biggest one in Finland), and I'd be bummed to have to wait until after to look into this. Especially now that I have a lot of extra time on my hands at work, so much so that it's boring at work.

There's a premier for the official UA6 video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU4WXd7ijwU) set to go live at 11 am tomorrow (CST, I think). So you can be pretty confidant that the UA itself will release around that same time.

[Anymage]

2) I don't think the existence of the multiverse somehow means you're forced to account for it or traverse it in every campaign. It's just there to explain why every official setting has a Plane of Shadow and a Feywild etc, and why spells and features that interact with those things function everywhere by default.

Let's be honest. The real reason for a multiverse is to make it easier for any character to show up in any game, no matter the initial thematics of the world. Still, it's essentially fluff and nothing stops the DM from upfront saying that their campaign doesn't include multiversal silliness. So it's not my favorite, but also easy to ignore.

Personally, I'll be curious to see what they do with capstone abilities. Some of the ones right now provide little reason not to dip another class instead, so I'll be curious what the target power level should be now.

[Oramac]

Personally, I'll be curious to see what they do with capstone abilities. Some of the ones right now provide little reason not to dip another class instead, so I'll be curious what the target power level should be now.

Agreed. The 2014 capstones were [mostly] underpowered, and Epic Boons were even worse. I'm curious to see if they go the other direction or stick with underpowered garbage.

[Melil12]

My prediction for the 7 classes:

Monk (confirmed)
Bard (confirmed
Rogue (confirmed)
Ranger
Paladin
Cleric
Druid

The remainder that won't be here are the three mage classes and the other two warriors.

I think they intent to include all the classes updated with capstone moves and subclass features back to standard. I don’t think warriors/mages will have any meaningful changes. Everyone else will get a quick update to reflect the current content with it seems experts getting more polish.

I don’t think they have had enough time to put in meaningful changes to Druids just yet. That one is going to take some time to figure out. Ranger and Paladin to reflect changes with all martials/warriors.

[Psyren]

I think they intent to include all the classes updated with capstone moves and subclass features back to standard. I don’t think warriors/mages will have any meaningful changes. Everyone else will get a quick update to reflect the current content with it seems experts getting more polish.

I don’t think they have had enough time to put in meaningful changes to Druids just yet. That one is going to take some time to figure out. Ranger and Paladin to reflect changes with all martials/warriors.

It's possible that instead of Druid we're getting Fighter or Barbarian, but I really hope Druid round 2 shows up here; they've had plenty of time.


Let's be honest. The real reason for a multiverse is to make it easier for any character to show up in any game, no matter the initial thematics of the world. Still, it's essentially fluff and nothing stops the DM from upfront saying that their campaign doesn't include multiversal silliness. So it's not my favorite, but also easy to ignore.

Personally, I'll be curious to see what they do with capstone abilities. Some of the ones right now provide little reason not to dip another class instead, so I'll be curious what the target power level should be now.

Their job is to say "this is how X could be possible if you're looking to explain it." Saying no is easy, any DM can do that.

[Arkhios]

There's a premier for the official UA6 video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU4WXd7ijwU) set to go live at 11 am tomorrow (CST, I think). So you can be pretty confidant that the UA itself will release around that same time.
Nice! Also, a small relief; I'll probably have something meaningful to do :smalltongue:

[Kish]

[5R/5.5/One]

This is, probably unintentionally, hilarious.

[Kane0]

I'm thoroughly whelmed.

[Brookshw]

While I do love large-scale multiversal plot, I also prefer them minimalist in the official setting.
In some ways, it's much easier to homebrew some multiversal stuff on top of a setting that doesn't have them.


I'm kinda surprised they bother to mention it. Like 'no #@!&, D&D's been an interconnected multiverse since the 80s, how is this news?' Even niche 'we're not really connected' cases like DS were still connected.

Tangent, I'd like to see a Ravenloft domain that's drawn from SJ (ya know, from back when it was a real setting).

[Kish]

Tangent, I'd like to see a Ravenloft domain that's drawn from SJ (ya know, from back when it was a real setting).
What's SJ?

[Psyren]

What's SJ?

I'm guessing Spelljammer


This is, probably unintentionally, hilarious.

I am a river to my people :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm kinda surprised they bother to mention it. Like 'no #@!&, D&D's been an interconnected multiverse since the 80s, how is this news?' Even niche 'we're not really connected' cases like DS were still connected.

Tangent, I'd like to see a Ravenloft domain that's drawn from SJ (ya know, from back when it was a real setting).

It's been an optionally connected set of settings that might or might not actually share cosmologies. The official settings haven't actually acknowledged that multiverse; only non-standard ones like Planescape and Spelljammer officially meld them together.

This says that there is one and only one allowed cosmology, and all non-Material-plane entities must be shared between all settings. Everything must appear everywhere and be the same thing. Pelor in FR? Same as Pelor (maybe a different name, but same underlying entity) in every other setting. And that access between settings is fundamentally baked in at a very low level--you can just directly teleport to another setting without any issues other than fundamental misfires.

That's a large and (IMO) stupid change. It straightjackets all future settings, shoving them into the bloated mess that is FR's cosmology.

[Dienekes]

Numbers added for ease of reference.

1. One of my big complaints about WotC is that they are super cautious about anything except spells. They only do tiny tiny, bland features. And Weapon Mastery is one that could have been great...except that it's basically "add a couple small numbers here and there."

2. Agreed. Again, the flow is one way only. Casters get martial goodies for free but martials have to spend major effort to get even the smallest bit of caster goodies.

3. Yeah. "Multiverse" is a great way to make me tune out because it inevitably means you're not actually putting effort into making any coherent worlds and are just throwing random stuff out and hand-waving any conflicts.

4. Agreed. More have your cake and eat it too sentiment. Which does not fill me with desire to hop on this train.

1. Agreed.

2. Eh. I mean, any understanding of the fantasies behind the classes beyond the most strictly gamist would indicate Paladins and Rangers should get abilities to demonstrate skill with weapons. They're literally based on Galahad/Lancelot and Aragorn/Drizzt. I don't have a problem with them getting mastery. And it's not like doing so will actually change their playstyle noticeably.

It is, however, more fuel to my belief the class groups are very half-assed. But if they're making it half-assed, let's spread out Expertise everywhere because holy crap everyone who doesn't have spells should be getting a taste of actually being good with the skill system.


1) They did explicitly say they're going to keep iterating on Weapon Mastery but it's here to stay.

2) I don't think the existence of the multiverse somehow means you're forced to account for it or traverse it in every campaign. It's just there to explain why every official setting has a Plane of Shadow and a Feywild etc, and why spells and features that interact with those things function everywhere by default.

3) What I'm really hoping/excited for in this packet is Druid 2.0.

1) Good, thank you for the clarification. We'll see how their iteration goes.

2) Yeah, it's why I mostly point out, I don't like it but it doesn't really matter all that much to me. At most, it means that there will be a lot of dead weight in the book. Say what you will about D&D setting information, I find most of it useless, but occasionally I find a kernel of something interesting. When they actually dig deep into the details of a single setting, like how a kingdom's economies work, who they're allied with, what the tensions of government are, how are the populace kept in line, how the various polities are trying to increase their standing in the world. That cool stuff.

If they're taking a more multiversal route, it will most likely mean we're going to get more big picture look at a lot of different planes. Rather than getting into the gritty details I actually like.

It's overall not a big deal, but it is something to note that they're going to be spending time on that will probably not benefit me and my games in any noteworthy way.

[Brookshw]

I'm guessing Spelljammer


Bingo


It's been an optionally connected set of settings that might or might not actually share cosmologies. The official settings haven't actually acknowledged that multiverse; only non-standard ones like Planescape and Spelljammer officially meld them together.


Optional on the sense you don't need to let a campaign stray outside of it's setting, sure. Canonically? There's no shortage of canonical interchange, people from greyhawk popping up or at least communicating with people in FR, spell jammer in FR while gods from that setting go to Sigil while Darksun has a dead sorcerer king brokering a deal to let the blood war spill out into that setting. Go back to the original MotP and it's all interconnected, you can go back to the original Dragon magazine if you want, but it's pretty empty for details so not much you'll get from it. PS and SJ were just the vehicles they chose to make the interwoven settings more logically connected. It's been a multiverse since arguably '79, and definitely formally one since the 80s.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that the game will still acknowledge people can make their own setting and cosmologies separated from canon if that's what they want.

[Psyren]

It's been an optionally connected set of settings that might or might not actually share cosmologies. The official settings haven't actually acknowledged that multiverse; only non-standard ones like Planescape and Spelljammer officially meld them together.

Ravenloft definitely acknowledges it, or at the very least the Mists can canonically grab Anyone from Anywhere.

As for the rest like Krynn, Faerun, Eberron, Greyhawk etc - one thing you're glossing over is also one of the main things all of these settings tend to have in common, i.e. having epically high-magic lost civilizations back during their antiquity. Istar/Ergoth, High Netheril/Cormanthyr, Xen'drik/Argonessen, Suel/Lynn etc - all were capable of untold, likely even multiverse-spanning feats of magical prowess. Even if the existence of the multiverse is unknown to the present day commoner in these places, that doesn't mean it always was.


This says that there is one and only one allowed cosmology, and all non-Material-plane entities must be shared between all settings. Everything must appear everywhere and be the same thing. Pelor in FR? Same as Pelor (maybe a different name, but same underlying entity) in every other setting. And that access between settings is fundamentally baked in at a very low level--you can just directly teleport to another setting without any issues other than fundamental misfires.

Pelor is Greyhawk I believe :smalltongue: Did you mean Lathander?

And no, just because a god exists in one setting under one identity doesn't meant they need to show up in all of them. Gods don't have to follow the same rules as mortals. The entity called Pelor in Greyhawk may be the same entity as Lathander in FR, or they may be completely different, or they may be the same entity but it truly only answers to the name corresponding to where you are when you call on it, or maybe you pray to Lathander in Greyhawk and Pelor grants your spells anyway. At the end of the day it doesn't matter - what matters is that you get to play your Light Cleric in both campaigns, or the same campaign that for whatever reason goes to both places.

Or you rule that they have to retrain when they get to Ravenloft - that's fine too.

[animewatcha]

If they drop the ball on monk unarmed strike (you know they are going to mess it up somehow), we might get to claim that the unarmed strike can do ANY weapon mastery through different technique.

[Psyren]

Just realized we have confirmation from the thumbnail, of the classes that will be in this packet:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1123806128887824415/image.png

*chants at Druid* pleasedontsuckpleasedontsuckpleasedont...

[Amechra]

"We heard your complaints about the Warlock... and realized that the issue was that we called it the Warlock. We will be changing the name of the class to Druid, and will make no further changes."

[Kane0]

Interested to see what they do to the Ranger this time if nothing else.

[Atranen]

It's been an optionally connected set of settings that might or might not actually share cosmologies. The official settings haven't actually acknowledged that multiverse; only non-standard ones like Planescape and Spelljammer officially meld them together.

This says that there is one and only one allowed cosmology, and all non-Material-plane entities must be shared between all settings. Everything must appear everywhere and be the same thing. Pelor in FR? Same as Pelor (maybe a different name, but same underlying entity) in every other setting. And that access between settings is fundamentally baked in at a very low level--you can just directly teleport to another setting without any issues other than fundamental misfires.

That's a large and (IMO) stupid change. It straightjackets all future settings, shoving them into the bloated mess that is FR's cosmology.

Agreed, the multiverse has always been a hard no for me. I don't care for the idea that everything is connected, and all it takes is an appropriately high level caster for every setting to be available. Have some specificity; if you're in Greyhawk, you're in Greyhawk, full stop.

On the other hand, defining their setting more precisely will let them have abilities and subclasses key off details of that setting, rather than being maximally generic. I'm not sure I'll like that in practice as I don't like the setting they chose, but it's good from a design perspective.

I don't have much hope that I'll like the playtest.

[Leon]

Interested to see what they do to the Ranger this time if nothing else.

They can start by giving Hunter its options back and not being Spell effects for the later options

[Mastikator]

Just realized we have confirmation from the thumbnail, of the classes that will be in this packet:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1123806128887824415/image.png

*chants at Druid* pleasedontsuckpleasedontsuckpleasedont...

He said in a previous interview that they're going back to the 2014 wildshape, so like, it's going to continue to suck.

[One Tin Soldier]

He said in a previous interview that they're going back to the 2014 wildshape, so like, it's going to continue to suck.

He said that going back to using monster stat blocks was an option on the table, not that it was a for sure option. In fact, he said much more definitively that reining in the low level and very high level power of the ability was a priority, especially for the Moon Druid. So purely going back to the 2014 version is more off the table than on.

[Psyren]

He said in a previous interview that they're going back to the 2014 wildshape, so like, it's going to continue to suck.

I watched that interview, and that's not what he said.

Regardless, we'll find out what he actually meant within the next hour or so hopefully.

Sigh, it's 2014+ Better than the old one but feels like they're giving up.
On the bright side, they did kill book diving by limiting the number of forms you can know.

[Monster Manuel]

Looks like it's up:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/ua/ph-playtest-6

Downloading the PDF now.

[Amechra]

Anyone care to enlighten us non-D&D-Beyond-having peasants about what's in the playtest packet? Perhaps in the form of a direct link to the PDF, as has been the custom for these threads in the past? :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Anyone care to enlighten us non-D&D-Beyond-having peasants about what's in the playtest packet? Perhaps in the form of a direct link to the PDF, as has been the custom for these threads in the past? :smallwink:

Try this: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest6/OJVW7QLuHjEFCCVs/UA-2023-PH-Playtest6.pdf

As for what's in it, disappointment on the Monk side. Still d8, still MAD, same ki martial discipline progression. same short-rest dependency, They dumped Tongue of the Sun and Moon finally at least.

Shadow got some great buffs. 4 Elements is completely different and melee focused.

I think we're going to need a bunch of threads to cover each of these.

[Melil12]

What they did to monk makes me want to cry …

Nerfed stunning strike
Nerfed Martial Arts
Nerfed weapon selection

[Oramac]

I think we're going to need a bunch of threads to cover each of these.

Oh yea. I was gonna make a big overall thread, but I think that's likely to just be ludicrous at this point. Mini-threads is probably the way to go.

[Willie the Duck]

Just realized we have confirmation from the thumbnail, of the classes that will be in this packet:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1123806128887824415/image.png

*chants at Druid* pleasedontsuckpleasedontsuckpleasedont...

It... doesn't. Animals know limits playing the whole MM. Retaining your (potentially shield and half-plate) non-shaped AC makes up for no new HP (Moon Druid still gets them as temp hp, but capped at low levels), and you can cast healing in-form. Seems like they (amazingly) split the difference pretty well.

And Land Druid... wow, nice upgrade.

[Psyren]

...Am I reading this wrong or can 10th-level+ Bards learn any spell in the game?
They're back to being spells known casters though... sigh.

Rogues got Steady Aim back!! *happy dance*


It... doesn't. Animals know limits playing the whole MM. Retaining your (potentially shield and half-plate) non-shaped AC makes up for no new HP, and you can cast healing in-form. Seems like they (amazingly) split the difference pretty well.

And Land Druid... wow, nice upgrade.

Shields don't count actually, and you'd need to burn resources on picking up half-plate, but yeah if you have high Dex and light armor then you'll easily beat most animal forms.

[Xervous]

As I’m reading this through...

11th level onwards feels like a complete void for most classes. A decent smattering of features that progress with levels just stop right before this point, and across most classes and subclasses the features before the L20 capstone feel exceptionally underwhelming for the level.

“You get a bonus action attack X times per day” feels like grinding War Cleric into the dirt.

Druid wild shape fixes extensive book diving and the default HP bubble. I’m satisfied.

Monk reads like a foreign market knockoff. “Discipline points” oh yes I’m totally going to pronounce all the syllables of discipline right? No, I’m going to stunning strike the ogre because he’s worth the Di. “Warrior of the Hand” the Red Hand of Doom? The keyboard warrior’s hand? The [redacted]?

Paladin. Lots of CHA to X going around, I like secondary stats being relevant.

Rogue: cunning strike is the most amazing thing in this packet. The fact that WotC is printing resource free martial options in a base class is momentous. AND IT EVEN GETS A HIGH LEVEL PROGRESSION. Ahem. Really nice to see some subclasses interacting with sneak attack. Every rogue now has more depth than chumpion fighter.

[Oramac]

...Am I reading this wrong or can 10th-level+ Bards learn any spell in the game?

Yup. Not a fan. Especially since it's just removing a restriction introduced in this playtest. It's certainly more versatile than the other Magical Secrets, but I think it's far less thematic.


They're back to being spells known casters though... sigh.


Disagree here. I'm not opposed to them being prepared casters, but I'm totally cool with Bards being spells-known casters too. I just wish they'd actually call it "spells known".

[Willie the Duck]

Shields don't count actually, and you'd need to burn resources on picking up half-plate, but yeah if you have high Dex and light armor then you'll easily beat most animal forms.
Missed the shield clause, thanks. The only resource you'd spend (other than cash) is the primal order choice, and I'm guessing most moon druids that wanted to enter combat would pick Warden. So with a 14 Dex, you're looking at AC 16-17. Not too shabby. Alongside retaining part of the 2014 druid's extra hp benefit (just level-limited, and not stacking with other temp hp), I think this goes a long way to addressing the concerns people had with the last test packet moon druid's combat resilience.

[Zevox]

So, the single biggest thing I wanted to see in this is the new version of the Four Elements Monk. And... blech, what is this crap?

Elemental Attunement: Gives you a new cantrip... that is way less fun and interesting than the old elemental cantrips. Then you have to spend a ki point for the rest of the benefits, making them considerably lamer than they could otherwise be. And for some reason, the "elements" you get are now fire, cold, acid, and lightning? I mean, if you want to tell me that cold = water, I can go with that, but why the heck are we replacing earth and air with acid and lightning? Guys, the elements you're representing in this "four elements" class matter, it's not just pick any four damage types and they'll do.

Environmental Burst: weaker Fireball equivalent using the new four damage type options. Functional, but bland, and still suffers from the damage type choices.

Stride of the Elements isn't bad, I can give them that one, but Elemental Epitome I'm not sure what they're going for, and it's such a high level ability I don't feel much need to dig into it right now anyway, since so few games would ever see it. But the first two are the big things, and oh boy, do they do way less to sell me on the fantasy than Water Whip, First of Unbroken Air, and Shape the Flowing River did from the original version of the subclass, and that's just sad. Guess if we want a decent D&D equivalent to a Bender, homebrew is the only way it's ever happening after all, because this is so off-base I can't see it being "refined" into anything like what I'd hope for.

[Mongobear]

LOL, once again the cool new thing for fighters (and barbarians) becomes a cool new thing for everyone who can hold a stick.

I am still choosing to die on the hill that this entire system is bad as a base rule for the game and needs to be relegated to a splat expansion with new subclass options for the listed classes.

The more playtest they release, the more my decision to ignore 2014 5e and 1DND updates, and instead cut and paste together my own rule set using the best parts of each system with a little sprinkle of homebrew is sounding more appealing.

[solidork]

Very exciting stuff for Rogues; Reliable Talent at 7th and the ability to trade sneak attack dice for effects like disarming and blinding.

[Psyren]

Good point on Warden Order, that's indeed going to be great for a Moon Druid. In fact, as written if you stick with scale mail you can get the AC bonus without the disadvantage to stealth, right?

RE: Bard - to be clear, my "sigh" was "I'd prefer them to be prepared casters but I can live with them being known," i.e. very mild. To be honest, it does make sense that they'd have to go out and learn a repertoire of "songs" or something.

But the Bardic casting I feel is a big problem. Now you have to pick Divine or Primal if you want to heal early on, and the illusion and enchantment options on those lists are frankly pitiful. But if you pick Arcane to, well, be a bard, now you can shoot fireballs and teleport and animate skeletons and bind outsiders etc.

[Amechra]

Boy howdy the Monk.



The new naming scheme is atrociously dull, and commits the cardinal sin of not rolling off your tongue. Also, their new flavor text is wishy-washy (as always) — did you really need to say "some Monks like quiet seclusion, while others don't."?
Martial Arts is now slightly better... but making the damage-die increase unarmed strike only kinda washes that out. They claim that Weapon Masteries will make up for this, but I'm... unconvinced (maybe TWFing with daggers will be worth it?). Oh, right, and they didn't give unarmed strikes access to any Masteries, so at high levels you'll have to choose between dealing decent damage and doing vaguely interesting martial character stuff. Woo?
Some of the changes are for the better... but they're to stuff that most people don't really care about. Step of the Wind getting both actions is nice (it makes me feel a little vindicated), Deflect Missiles is slightly better (I will admit that Deflect Energy is a really good upgrade), and Self-Restoration is a little more practical. Oh, right, and Heightened Metabolism's kinda nice if your group doesn't let you get enough short rests, I guess?
In exchange for that... Stunning Strike has been pretty solidly nerfed by making it 1/turn. That might not seem like much of a downgrade, but Stunning Strike kinda relied on the ability to use it 2+ times per turn for it to work properly. Oh, right, and Empty Body got nerfed since you can't use it to walk through walls anymore... but who got to 18th level anyway?
The subclasses are sidegrades at best — Shadow looks a bit better in combat and much worse at out-of-combat stealth (you know, the reason you go for Shadow?), Four Elements seems acceptable, and Open Hand got some light nerfs in exchange for a better 11th level feature. I am thoroughly whelmed.


The problem with all of this is that none of these changes do anything to resolve the actual mechanical issues the Monk has. They're still MAD (heck, they're arguably more MAD if they want to use Stunning Strike reliably) with no built-in ways to resolve it, they still don't benefit much from feats or multiclassing (the weapon and armor restrictions are a killer), we're still wildly overvaluing unarmed strikes and unarmored defenses for no good reason, and ki points are still in the awkward spot where you need to wait until Tier 3 before you can start using them freely.

...

As for the rest of the packet...

I'm annoyed at the sheer prevalence of features that just auto-prepare a spell for you (for the love of cute fluffy critters, just let Druids talk to animals!), and the continued use of "non-committal" features where you can just repick things after a long rest is... annoying (you get five different beast forms by 8th level — why do you need to be able to replace all of them after a long rest?).

I like College of the Dance (I have a weak spot for Monks :p), but I'm not a fan of them still leaning on Bards being full casters with access to every single non-class specific spells. My vote is making them a half-caster and buffing Bardic Inspiration to match, but I know that that's never going to happen.

The Barbarian and the Rogue are both in my pile of classes that I think the design team actually hit on cool improvements for. They are the only classes in that pile.

EDIT: I just ran numbers for the Monk and... first off, the damage bump is pretty small in the grand scheme of things (so it's not like they even fixed that complaint). Secondly, unless you get your hands on a magical dagger or something, TWF isn't worth it over the classic "use a quarterstaff/spear until 10th level, then swap to just punching stuff" playstyle.

As for the Masteries themselves... Monks get to pick from these exciting options (I've highlighted the options that are primarily ranged in orange, because they don't work too well with Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows)!



Flex: Quarterstaves and Spears (1d8). Flex is still boring, and is even less useful for Monks than it is for other classes (who at least get the ability to use shields).
Nick: Daggers, Light Hammers, and Sickles (all d4s). Due to a change in this very packet, the Monk is now incapable of picking up Fighting Style feats (something I initially missed), meaning that TWF is kinda off the table.
Push: Greatclubs (1d8). You can't use Martial Arts for this one, so you'd have to be Strength-based (good luck with that, buddy)... but it can reposition enemies, I guess?
Slow: Clubs, Javelins (1d6), Slings (1d4), and Light Crossbows (1d8). This is probably one of the better alternatives, honestly, since it helps you play keepaway more effectively.
Vex: Darts (1d4), Handaxes, and Shortbows (1d6). Seems alright, though the Monk isn't really set up to take advantage of advantage.


Also, I just realized another thing that's missing - where's the Kensei? Why did they go with Mercy (a third Punch Monk, alongside Four Elements and Open Hand) over Weapon Monk?

[Boverk]

I've skimmed through the document, will give it a more thorough going over later, here's my initial thoughts.

I really like the Rogue changes...cunning strike is a great addition. The Thief subclass can now use magic items as a bonus action, which is a big change for magic item heavy campaigns. I would like to see them being able to skirt around some attunement requirements( maybe for uncommon and rare items?)

Bard College of Dance has a new unarmored defense (10 + dex + cha, no shields or armor) with free unarmed strike whenever you use a bardic inspiration...really different than the other bards, and I'm here for it. Also, new Magical Secrets is wild.

Was disappointed there isn't a weapon mastery for unarmed for Monks. I really like the new way of the four elements(Warrior of the Elements), which is not a statement I thought I'd make today.

I'm pleased with the new Moon Druid.

Paladin divine smite requiring a bonus action hurts some of the multiclassing crit fishing builds, but I don't mind. Find steed requires paladin 5, but you can upcast it to get the flying mount if multiclassing.

[Boverk]

...Am I reading this wrong or can 10th-level+ Bards learn any spell in the game?
They're back to being spells known casters though... sigh.

No class specific spells, but yeah it's pretty wild.

[Psyren]

I'm very disappointed in the monk. d8 HD, no ASI, still MAD, still ki-starved, still lame proficiencies... I really want to know what people were putting in that initial PHB survey. Clearly they were dunking on Ranger all day long for it to get big buffs, but Monk just seems to have been forgotten.

[Unoriginal]

DESIGN NOTE: DISEASE
In the 2014 versions of the Monk and Paladin, both classes gained immunity to disease. That immunity has been removed from the playtest versions of the classes because the word “disease” doesn’t have a solid meaning in the rules, and for years, the rules have delivered disease-like effects through the Poisoned condition. The game will
continue to use the condition in that fashion.

It's nice to see that the current design team has no idea how the 2014 rules worked.

Also Monks are now no longer immune to poison either, either...

[Xervous]

I'm very disappointed in the monk. d8 HD, no ASI, still MAD, still ki-starved, still lame proficiencies... I really want to know what people were putting in that initial PHB survey. Clearly they were dunking on Ranger all day long for it to get big buffs, but Monk just seems to have been forgotten.

You see it’s no longer ki starved, we changed the resource name!

But yes, Munk is Di famished.

[Unoriginal]

You see it’s no longer ki starved, we changed the resource name!

But yes, Munk is Di famished.

Monk lacks discipline!

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess that they're just following the age-old tradition of monks being the poster child for suck? And casters getting all the goodies?

[Atranen]

Skinmed over Cleric and subclasses, and the druid a bit. I'm broadly happy with what I'm seeing.

Divine order (formerly holy order) is now at 1, so you don't need to mix up your progression as a heavy armor cleric. Good change.

Domain spells now include 1st level spells. Good.

(Domains are Life, Light, Trickery, War, for those wondering. Good choices if you only have 4 to work with).

Domains get specific channel divinity options at 3 (when they take the domain). Good. The channel divinity options are pretty solid, including a revised invoke duplicity that seems worth using. The new version of Preserve Life is very poor though (use CD uses to cast abjuration spells with 1 use of CD : 1 spell level). So a CD use gets you one healing word, instead of 15 (25, 35, 50) hp, as previously. This really hurts the life cleric and needs a change.

War cleric has a lot of changes discussed in a recent thread. The BA attack is WIS/SR, and you don't need to take the attack action to be eligible. Good and good.

Spell preparations are now flexible (you don't need to always have exactly 4 1st level spells prepared), and have their own progression. The amount you get basically matches what you'd have with optimized WIS previously, until levels 11+; then it slows down a bit. They never should have left this, and it's great to see them bring it back.

Divine intervention gets a welcome change that makes it actually useable in play -- you get to use it to cast a divine spell of 5th or below. There are some edge cases (it can duplicate hallow, with a 24 hr cast time and 1,000 gp, for a single action and no cost), but the right idea.

High level divine intervention (20th) gives you wish. Kind of silly, I want it to be its own thing, so arcane and divine have different capstones. But in terms of effect it's the right idea.

I'd play this cleric. They gain a lot of stuff at 3rd, and I still think they ought to get the domain sooner (would it be such a big deal to get those 2 extra domain spells at 1st? It would do a lot for theming). But overall I'm pleased with the direction they've taken it.

On druid:

The wild shape change is way better than previous; you get a shortlist of forms that you can swap out. For the non moon druids, this works well in keeping flexibility while reducing complexity for new players somewhat. I'll let others check out the moon druid.

Land druid changes are generally good, some small buffs to get an extra cast of a domain spells. The progression goes down to only 1 domain spells per spell level, which is sad. But the ones that are there are generally solid and thematic, and the old lists often had some dead weight, so it doesn't bother me much.

I would play this land druid without any complaints.

[Mongobear]

I'm very disappointed in the monk. d8 HD, no ASI, still MAD, still ki-starved, still lame proficiencies... I really want to know what people were putting in that initial PHB survey. Clearly they were dunking on Ranger all day long for it to get big buffs, but Monk just seems to have been forgotten.

Unless im mistaken, this is the very first time Monk has appeared in a playtest document, so it likely just hasnt had the time or exposure to get opinions out like the Ranger?

[Amechra]

But yes, Munk is Di famished.

Part of me is amused that there aren't any good abbreviations for Discipline Points. All of the ones I can think of are kinda crass. :p

...

Looking at the College of Dance again... I'd love it if they revisited the Monk from that perspective. Have a "Disciplined Ki Spirit Pool" that's bigger to start with but doesn't grow all that much (Font of Inspiration + Superior Inspiration being the only major increases for the Bard, though being able to trade spell slots for BI uses 1/turn when you're empty gives them an amazing amount of staying power that would be hard to translate into the Monk) and give them an equivalent to Agile Parry ("you get an unarmed strike whenever you spend a Kinspirational Discipline Point" honestly feels pretty Flurry of Blows-y).

That honestly feels like the issue with the Monk — it needs a bigger overhaul than they're willing to make.

[False God]

I guess that they're just following the age-old tradition of monks being the poster child for suck? And casters getting all the goodies?

And apparently they're trying to strip out all the "eastern" elements.

Why not just make an unarmed brawler class? Certainly we can get enough inspiration from boxing, wrestling and fisticuffs that we don't need the "asian" flavor right?

I mean, if they're not gonna cheese it, and they're not going to put effort into it, why do it at all?

[Xervous]

Part of me is amused that there aren't any good abbreviations for Discipline Points. All of the ones I can think of are kinda crass. :p

The rebranding they are attempting with monk inspires such thoughts as...

PLAY DragonDungeon NOW!
NEW JOB Warrior of Hand Monk
LIMIT OFFER Get 50 DP for $4.99

[Amechra]

I mean, the flavor is still pretty "Eastern", is the thing. The fact that there's only one "Cultivator" class instead of that being the explanation for why non-magical people can keep up with people who can tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit in a corner is weird to me, especially since the current design team seems to lean more towards the gonzo.

The thing they honestly need to fix if they want to get away from the "Eastern theming" complaints is the fact that the Monk is the Punch People While Naked class. The current team is a bit better about this, but what needs to happen is that "unarmored defense" and non-garbage unarmed strikes need to be treated like weapon and armor proficiencies, not like class features.


The rebranding they are attempting with monk inspires such thoughts as...

PLAY DragonDungeon NOW!
NEW JOB Warrior of Hand Monk
LIMIT OFFER Get 50 DP for $4.99

Don't give WotC ideas — the last thing we need is for them to attach resource recovery to microtransactions. :p

[Xervous]

Don't give WotC ideas — the last thing we need is for them to attach resource recover to microtransactions. :p

“Bribe GM with food” predates WotC as the premier MTX option.


I don’t see coherent flavor coming out of current WotC with regards to non casters. With the multiverse it’s all about presenting just enough detail for people to recognize things, then letting them fill in the blanks.

[Mastikator]

He said that going back to using monster stat blocks was an option on the table, not that it was a for sure option. In fact, he said much more definitively that reining in the low level and very high level power of the ability was a priority, especially for the Moon Druid. So purely going back to the 2014 version is more off the table than on.

I watched that interview, and that's not what he said.

Regardless, we'll find out what he actually meant within the next hour or so hopefully.

Sigh, it's 2014+ Better than the old one but feels like they're giving up.
On the bright side, they did kill book diving by limiting the number of forms you can know.

:smallsmile:

Told you so.

[False God]

I don’t see coherent flavor coming out of current WotC with regards to non casters. With the multiverse it’s all about presenting just enough detail for people to recognize things, then letting them fill in the blanks.

The Multiverse, the kitchen sink of kitchen sinks.

[Dr.Samurai]

War cleric has a lot of changes discussed in a recent thread. The BA attack is WIS/SR, and you don't need to take the attack action to be eligible. Good and good.
I hated that they removed this from the Berserker subclass on the Barbarian. I'm not at all surprised that they kept it for the War Cleric, and increased the usage.

I also won't die of shock that the "Warrior" unique feature has been granted to non-warriors.

Or that the monk changes are underwhelming.

Not to keep beating this drum but... WotC doesn't know what to do with classes that don't cast spells.

[Psyren]

Unless im mistaken, this is the very first time Monk has appeared in a playtest document, so it likely just hasnt had the time or exposure to get opinions out like the Ranger?

It is, but the Ranger had massive buffs on its first appearance too. Granted, they had Tasha's to build on, but still.


And apparently they're trying to strip out all the "eastern" elements.

Why not just make an unarmed brawler class? Certainly we can get enough inspiration from boxing, wrestling and fisticuffs that we don't need the "asian" flavor right?

I mean, if they're not gonna cheese it, and they're not going to put effort into it, why do it at all?

The "ascetic/disciplined spiritual" wasn't the problem, the problem was only being one specific flavor of ascetic (Shaolin.) There are so many others across a wide variety of cultures, from Yogi to Fakirs to Friars to Greco-Roman wrestlers to Cenobites etc., most of which I can't elaborate on here but they do exist.


:smallsmile:

Told you so.

Even so, I previously said I would be fine with a small curated list + scaling. They've done exactly that, it's just that the curation is in the hands of the player rather than them.

[Amechra]

It is, but the Ranger had massive buffs on its first appearance too. Granted, they had Tasha's to build on, but still.

That's part of what's so strange about the Monk — they've effectively ignored all of the buffs from Tasha's.

[ZRN]

I'm very disappointed in the monk. d8 HD, no ASI, still MAD, still ki-starved, still lame proficiencies... I really want to know what people were putting in that initial PHB survey. Clearly they were dunking on Ranger all day long for it to get big buffs, but Monk just seems to have been forgotten.

Heightened Metabolism at 7th is a decent ki boost - basically an extra short rest worth of ki per day.

I was wondering how they would adjust unarmed strikes and weapon mastery and it looks like they... basically did the minimum possible. Which leads to weird results, like you can wield two daggers with Weapon Mastery to get 3 attacks/round at first level (and 4/round with Flurry of Blows starting at 2nd). But you can never, ever get the TWF fighting style without multi-classing, despite being in the "warrior" group, which basically means nothing at this point.

On the bright side, the damage die increase for unarmed strike means that you do better damage your whole career and it's viable to be unarmed-only from first level. Meanwhile the fact that simple weapons no longer use the scaling unarmed damage die means that you're not (as) pressured to just use weapons for the Mastery properties. Instead, at least ideally, it's kind of a Jackie Chan situation where you fight unarmed for damage but can start smacking people with chairs and sticks for extra effects. The improvement to Step of the Wind is also very nice. And the dumb endcap is at level 15 where it's not as terrible.

They also tidied up the subclasses a bit. Elementalist is less weird and just better, and can fly at 11th level, which is nice. Open hand loses the cute tranquility ribbon but gets a pretty useful free step-of-the-wind instead. Shadow loses Pass Without Trace, which sucks, but hopefully that spell is getting nuked anyway.

[Atranen]

I hated that they removed this from the Berserker subclass on the Barbarian. I'm not at all surprised that they kept it for the War Cleric, and increased the usage.

I also won't die of shock that the "Warrior" unique feature has been granted to non-warriors.

Or that the monk changes are underwhelming.

Not to keep beating this drum but... WotC doesn't know what to do with classes that don't cast spells.

Yeah, I agree that weapon mastery should be gated to the 'warrior' group if that is to mean anything. Give the war cleric an incentive to multiclass.

[Psyren]

Heightened Metabolism at 7th is a decent ki boost - basically an extra short rest worth of ki per day.

I was wondering how they would adjust unarmed strikes and weapon mastery and it looks like they... basically did the minimum possible. Which leads to weird results, like you can wield two daggers with Weapon Mastery to get 3 attacks/round at first level (and 4/round with Flurry of Blows starting at 2nd). But you can never, ever get the TWF fighting style without multi-classing, despite being in the "warrior" group, which basically means nothing at this point.

Monks being in the warrior group means they can take TWF Fighting Style as their 1st level feat actually, they meet the prereqs. The daggers in question would be Sais.

[Amechra]

Monks being in the warrior group means they can take TWF Fighting Style as their 1st level feat actually, they meet the prereqs. The daggers in question would be Sais.

They can't anymore, actually — all of the fighting style feats now require the Fighting Style class feature as of this playtest packet.

Why yes, that is a terrible decision that makes it so that Barbarians and Monks can't take Fighting Style feats. I'm glad you noticed, because the dev team didn't.

[ZRN]

Monks being in the warrior group means they can take TWF Fighting Style as their 1st level feat actually, they meet the prereqs. The daggers in question would be Sais.

They actually changed the fighting style feats - they now require the Fighting Style class feature as a prereq, not the warrior group. So now (per my understanding) barbarians and monks don't qualify, and rogues still don't, but rangers and paladins do.

[Dienekes]

Just looking at the Monk, as it's the new thing:

Uhh, I don't think the problems I have with the Monk and the problems WotC have with the Monk are the same. To me the Monk is the premier skirmisher class in the game. The problems that Monk has, is that very often the benefits of a skirmisher are overshadowed by an archer build or a control focused mage. So, to make this work, then the Monk would either need to skirmish better: Make it even easier to reach dangerous positions, make their burst survival abilities more efficient and not fight of Bonus Actions with their damage, improve their own CC / Burst options to make them running into a dangerous position to remove the most valued target better than the caster doing the same thing safer and at a distance.

Or announce that the Monk is actually a frontliner class now: Improve their hit points, AC, change their defensive options from burst effectiveness to something that is steady and lasts a long time. Less things like Spending a Ki Point to gain Dodge for a round and more things like getting a nice big boost of HP that will last for awhile.

They haven't really done neither of those things.

Their burst defenses are unchanged and still fight for their Bonus Action with their burst offense. Making the play pattern of getting into dangerous positions, wrecking the important target, and getting out again, strangely delayed. Their actual burst effectiveness is lowered with the Stunning Strike nerf. And it is just not mitigated with the damage buff. And they don't get the longterm defensive options needed for a true frontliner until 20th level.

Now one thing that's interesting is Heightened Metabolism, which has a name I kinda hate, reads way to SciFi. But, it's a step toward viewing the Monk's abilities as per Encounter instead of per Short Rest. And since the Monk's abilities really aren't particularly out of combat focused this would be awesome. Honestly, if they lowered the total Ki Points gained to around level 10 and made this ability the standard for how Monk's gain their Discipline back normally I'd be 100% for that change.

Basically any mastery option for any Simple Weapon is a choice. On the one hand I'm glad really interacting with that system is the Fighter's shtick, on the other, I did think it was kind of cool to see the Monk applying similar benefits to their fists.

Deflect Missile being a saving throw seems a bit odd. Deflect Energy is some silly DBZ nonsense, and I'm fine with it at that level.

But as is, it ends up being just a kind of soft patch for players who don't get enough Short Rests.

Anyway onto the subclasses:

Warrior of X: Not really a fan of the new naming convention. So generic as to be meaningless and if anything makes me think of Fighters rather than Monks.

Warrior of Shadow: Looks like it has some quality of life benefits.

Warrior of the Elements: Just a quick read. I'm uncertain what I think about it. I'm sure someone will go through and explain in detail why getting the spells was better in some ways (and it probably is). But each of the abilities made me actually think of Avatar the Last Airbender. So, right up the bat that's great. Will have to test it out. What's amusing is they've clearly dropped the "Four" in the 4 Elements. Maybe they considered it too tied to Eastern philosophy? But, it's not. The four are Greek in origin. Wuxing uses five. I don't know, the just making it interact with everything that can vaguely be called an element feels less narratively interesting.

Warrior of the Open Hand: Alright, not sure why the nerf to "addle" I don't think it was hurting anything. And now giving it one of the highest consistent saves in the game feels off since you're mostly going to want to use it against attacking style creatures that are the ones that usually have high Con. Fine with Tranquility being gone. Always made more sense of Mercy Monk or something. Only ever actually helped a Monk get into position on the first encounter of a day. Silly ability. The Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique is now just roughly 85 damage at 20. That's a lot less impressive.

Overall? Eh. I'm really starting to think that WotC doesn't understand how to actually make an effective skirmisher class. Considering their best attempts end up making better archers, at least in 5e. There are some good ideas. But not enough to switch it into becoming an effective frontliner or actually double down and be the premier skirmisher.

Glanced through some others.

I'm kinda curious about how people react to the Moon Druid. Because there was always a bit of tension there. Really the old one should have been called the "Beast Druid" or the "Animalist" or something. It was very defined by its relationship with animals and had about nothing to do with the Moon. New one is trying to put moon stuff into it. But, really, I personally have 0 ties between moon magic and animal magic in my head. Makes me think it'd almost be better to make a full on real moon/night focused druid subclass completely to fully explore the concept.

I really like the concept of Cunning Strikes. Honestly, this sort of feature was what I was hoping Weapon Masteries would be. A means of adding continual tactical depth, not locked in to repeating the same thing all the time (without weird weapon juggling interactions), and are focused on control and positioning rather than just more damage/accuracy. Love it.

[ZRN]

What do people think of the Favored Enemy changes to Ranger?

I kind of like the half-expertise thing - gives more of a reason to play rogues while still providing something unique for rangers - but the changes to favored enemy seem like they'll do the exact opposite of what they were previously trying to do. In the last playtest concentration-free Hunter's Mark let you burn through some spell slots for extra damage while still letting you use your concentration for more varied and fun stuff. Now instead you have to waste your concentration on boring bonus damage, and you don't even use your spell slots to do so.

[ZRN]

Just looking at the Monk, as it's the new thing:

Uhh, I don't think the problems I have with the Monk and the problems WotC have with the Monk are the same. To me the Monk is the premier skirmisher class in the game. The problems that Monk has, is that very often the benefits of a skirmisher are overshadowed by an archer build or a control focused mage. So, to make this work, then the Monk would either need to skirmish better: Make it even easier to reach dangerous positions, make their burst survival abilities more efficient and not fight of Bonus Actions with their damage, improve their own CC / Burst options to make them running into a dangerous position to remove the most valued target better than the caster doing the same thing safer and at a distance.

The level 11 subclass abilities seem like they're all focused on boosting mobility quite a bit, as is the buff to Step of the Wind. But you're right, they're still largely fighting for your bonus action. The exception, I guess, is Elemental monk, who (a) gets to attack from 15ft away all the time, and (b) gets a fly speed, so he'll be able to flurry every round.

[Dienekes]

The level 11 subclass abilities seem like they're all focused on boosting mobility quite a bit, as is the buff to Step of the Wind. But you're right, they're still largely fighting for your bonus action. The exception, I guess, is Elemental monk, who (a) gets to attack from 15ft away all the time, and (b) gets a fly speed, so he'll be able to flurry every round.

This is true, but I don't think a classes core combat strategy should be delayed past level 3ish. Early level monks have a lot of abilities that point them to be a skirmisher. But they all fight with each other so attempting to actually do so in play feels weak and slow. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what they should feel like.

[False God]

This is true, but I don't think a classes core combat strategy should be delayed past level 3ish. Early level monks have a lot of abilities that point them to be a skirmisher. But they all fight with each other so attempting to actually do so in play feels weak and slow. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what they should feel like.

There's another great example with the Druid, who doesn't get to turn into a freaking pigeon until level 8. While Sorcerers were sitting around casting Fly at level 5. Like the Monk, the Druid is also one of those classes that, magic aside, makes a great skirmisher and one of those mobility features is excessively gated to 3 levels later than all the straight casters.

It's patently clear not that Wizards "doesn't know" what to do with certain classes, but that it strongly believes that certain playstyles are simply inappropriate for their game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's patently clear not that Wizards "doesn't know" what to do with certain classes, but that it strongly believes that certain playstyles are simply inappropriate for their game.

Which IMO would be fine...if they came out and said as much. And didn't make classes that scream that they should use play styles that are now forbidden.

But they fail on both accounts.

[Dr.Samurai]

Something like the new Rogue's Cunning Strike is what Warriors should have received instead of Weapon Mastery.

Right now, the Rogue has interesting options when they Sneak Attack. The Fighter and Barbarian instead just get to spam the same Weapon Mastery trait ad nauseum unless they swap the weapon out.

I am really liking the new Rogue, and I've never wanted to play a Rogue more than I do now. My only little niggle would be that Cunning Strike's DC key off a choice between Strength of Dexterity, as I would like to play strong enforcer types. But otherwise this looks solid, and between a Weapon Mastery, Cunning Strike, and Improved Cunning/Devious Strikes, the Rogue has options and can inflict multiple conditions on an enemy with a single attack.

[Boverk]

Which IMO would be fine...if they came out and said as much. And didn't make classes that scream that they should use play styles that are now forbidden.

But they fail on both accounts.

The fighting style feat restriction will definitely be part of my feedback

[Unoriginal]

The exception, I guess, is Elemental monk, who (a) gets to attack from 15ft away all the time, and (b) gets a fly speed, so he'll be able to flurry every round.

They're too undisciplined to do that every round, though.

[False God]

Which IMO would be fine...if they came out and said as much. And didn't make classes that scream that they should use play styles that are now forbidden.

But they fail on both accounts.

Like most corporations, their goal is to get your money and then bully you into doing what they want. If they said it outright, you wouldn't give them your money and they'd have no control over you.

But as their recent ending of the sale of physical books on their website indicates, their moves are towards money and control.

[Psyren]

They can't anymore, actually — all of the fighting style feats now require the Fighting Style class feature as of this playtest packet.

Why yes, that is a terrible decision that makes it so that Barbarians and Monks can't take Fighting Style feats. I'm glad you noticed, because the dev team didn't.


They actually changed the fighting style feats - they now require the Fighting Style class feature as a prereq, not the warrior group. So now (per my understanding) barbarians and monks don't qualify, and rogues still don't, but rangers and paladins do.

Huh, I did miss that. Which... :smallsigh:


There's another great example with the Druid, who doesn't get to turn into a freaking pigeon until level 8. While Sorcerers were sitting around casting Fly at level 5. Like the Monk, the Druid is also one of those classes that, magic aside, makes a great skirmisher and one of those mobility features is excessively gated to 3 levels later than all the straight casters.

It's patently clear not that Wizards "doesn't know" what to do with certain classes, but that it strongly believes that certain playstyles are simply inappropriate for their game.

Druid not being able to fly until 8 is standard though. Moreover, it's a bonus action and doesn't use up their concentration. I'd call that an okay tradeoff.


They're too undisciplined to do that every round, though.

The 6th level feature sucks too. 3d8 fireball at 6th level for a third of your DP?

[Boverk]

Looking at Warrior of the Elements again, it kind of feels like Way of the Astral Self and Ascendant Dragon had a subclass baby together.

Also, it seems like they're moving away from things like "your attacks with ATTACK TYPE are considered magical" and making them have alternate damage types instead. They do this for Monk and Moon Druid Wild Shape here.

Moon Druid can do radiant damage and monks can do force damage.

[Melil12]

Someone who is good at math needs to break down how moving up a damage dice for unarmed attacks means weapons become over powered for monks.

[Sulicius]

Overall I am pretty optimistic about the packet. Can’t wait to test it soon!

Anyone else who has the opportunity to play test?

[Skrum]

I'm still excited about this cause I love new things, but eish, who...who gives feedback on these things. They aught to be ashamed.

Druids are getting back book diving for animal forms, but Moon Druid are also keeping the ability to cast abjuration spells while shifted. They also get a temp HP shield, largely making up for druids now keeping their own hp when they shift. Land druids got a nice buff.

Cleric are nicely streamlined with their heavy armor option at 1st, regardless of subclass, as well as being able to pick from extra damage on weapon attacks or extra damage on cantrips.

I mean right from the get go all of the spellcasters are getting an effective buff thanks to the consolidated spell lists - and bard gets to pick their favorite one to cast from! Very cool feature, but holy moly.

How, just....how. How does this happen. The only martial class that seems to be getting a unique and definitive buff is the barbarian. Monk is getting some trinkets, same as rogue and fighter. Paladin is getting nerfed. Like they're just riding the entire martial experience on Weapon Mastery and 1st level feats. That's really really disappointing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How, just....how. How does this happen. The only martial class that seems to be getting a unique and definitive buff is the barbarian. Monk is getting some trinkets, same as rogue and fighter. Paladin is getting nerfed. Like they're just riding the entire martial experience on Weapon Mastery and 1st level feats. That's really really disappointing.

It seems that in WotC's mind, Cool/thematic/powerful == magical == stuff for spellcasters. And specifically full casters. Martial stuff is supposed to be boring and simple and accessible to casters just as easily.

[Skrum]

It seems that in WotC's mind, Cool/thematic/powerful == magical == stuff for spellcasters. And specifically full casters. Martial stuff is supposed to be boring and simple and accessible to casters just as easily.

It just occurred to me, Elements Monk vs College of Dance Bard. Lmao.

Hey I'm a 6th level monk, I get my wisdom to AC, can punch things, and can spend 1/3 of my main resource to do 3d6 damage in a 20' radius

Hey I'm a 6th level bard, I get charisma to AC, can punch things, and can cast fireball 3/LR. And that's only my 3rd level slots!

[ZRN]

They're too undisciplined to do that every round, though.

Both elemental attunement (the reach thing) and stride of the elements (the fly thing) last ten minutes without requiring concentration, and each costs 1 ki (including the ki to use Step of the Wind). So yeah, you can definitely do it every round.

[Atranen]

I'm not a huge fan of bards picking between spell lists; they talk in the video about emphasizing their flexibility, but it seems like it's coming at the cost of them having a fixed identity. The only 'Bard' spell as it stands is vicious mockery.

I'd prefer if they made a short 'Bard exclusive' list, and then gave them partial access (a domain list, a 'pick N spells from this list' like magical secrets) to arcane/divine/primal.


Hey I'm a 6th level monk, I get my wisdom to AC, can punch things, and can spend 1/3 of my main resource to do 3d6 damage in a 20' radius

It's 3d8 I think, as the martial die goes up to 1d8 at level 5. Still very lackluster though

[Aimeryan]

I've read several posts here stating that book diving is now not a thing for Wild Shape... how? From what I can see you still pick from the same stat blocks as before, the only difference is that you 'prepare' some of them per Long Rest. I didn't see anywhere in the UA the mention of a fixed list, and skimming through all the pages I didn't see any Beast stat blocks that would suggest this.

On the Moon Druid itself:

I like the Moonbeam being castable while still being in Wild Shape; it gives something to use Spell Slots on without breaking form.
I like the Wild Shape charges being refreshed by Spell Slots; a use for low level Spell Slots that you would usually not have done much with before (cast big or go Wild Shape).
I dislike losing the feature to temporarily revert to normal form; having to burn a Wild Shape charge just to do this has always been aggravating. If they don't want it being too good in combat just make it an Action.


However, I dislike the temp HP being so low; the AC being your normal form's AC (minus shield) is good, but consider in 5e at level 10 you could be an Earth Elemental with 17 AC and 126 hit points - now you will have 17 AC and 30 hit points. Going into melee is still unoptimal - the damage of Beast forms past level 4 has never been spectacular, but at least you got to be tanky in 5e.

The problem Moon Druid has here is that this new UA still offers nothing by taking that subclass. The opportunity cost of not taking another subclass that does give things here is immense. Why would I run into melee when I could just take Potent Spellcasting and use a cantrip?

Moon Druid basically swaps out your now Warlock-level cantrip damage for melee damage without much support (no Weapon Mastery, no Sneak Attack, no GWM, etc.) and gives you a tiny bit of temp HP for the inconvenience. It stops you from casting any spells other than Moonbeam or Abjuration - when your a FULL CASTER; this isn't like a Barbarian using Rage. Moonlight Step is alright; a few free casts of Misty Step - but you have Wild Shape if you need to flee quickly as a Bonus Action already. Level 14 finally offers something but its quite minor for that level to be honest.

I would rather just get the free Polymorph at level 7 for the Tropical Land Druid than the whole suite of Circle of the Moon.

[Boverk]

I would rather just get the free Polymorph at level 7

I wouldn't mind seeing a (perhaps limited) polymorph X times a day for the moon druid. Maybe you pick a signature form at level 7 (or I guess 10 is the next subclass bit).

I agree that it needs a little more. One thing to consider is that you're not knocked out of Wildshape when you run through the temporary HP like you would be in the past when you ran out of your form's HP.

Maybe the temp HP starts at 3*Druid Level and refreshes to your druid level every turn? or some fraction of that to be balanced?

Or maybe they could get a displacer beast-esque avoidance ability.

[Brookshw]

However, I dislike the temp HP being so low;

Personally I think getting rid of the temp hp is the best change, I hope they do similar with polymorph.

[Psyren]

I've read several posts here stating that book diving is now not a thing for Wild Shape... how? From what I can see you still pick from the same stat blocks as before, the only difference is that you 'prepare' some of them per Long Rest. I didn't see anywhere in the UA the mention of a fixed list, and skimming through all the pages I didn't see any Beast stat blocks that would suggest this.

Searching up forms between adventuring days was never the problem, what was slowing down play was being able to do so every time you activated the ability. That was the biggest issue with 2014 WS. The second issue was the very wonky scaling on those forms, whether they made you an immortal wall of meat at low levels or had pitiful damage at high levels - both of these were fixed.

As for digging through every book for forms to keep up, you really don't have to anymore. Between the new rules for temp HP and maintaining your form, Elemental Fury, and Moonbeam, you're not punished for having a suboptimal shape anymore - you can for example go for something more thematic like wolves or spiders and still be competitive both offensively and defensively. Not to mention, with One's digital focus you're more likely to be using DDB to search up just the Beasts anyhow, or your DM can limit you to certain forms without gimping you.

Again, I would personally have preferred another swing at templates, but this is an acceptable compromise for me.



However, I dislike the temp HP being so low; the AC being your normal form's AC (minus shield) is good, but consider in 5e at level 10 you could be an Earth Elemental with 17 AC and 126 hit points - now you will have 17 AC and 30 hit points. Going into melee is still unoptimal - the damage of Beast forms past level 4 has never been spectacular, but at least you got to be tanky in 5e.

You're still tanky. You can heal yourself as a bonus action (HW), or even better, refresh your wild shape for a new set of THP (3 THP per level for a 1st level slot is phenomenal scaling) and you don't lose your form when the THP get burned through either. You can also benefit from magic armor now, so 17 isn't your ceiling - in a high level game you could get your paws on +3 half-plate or something.


I'm not a huge fan of bards picking between spell lists; they talk in the video about emphasizing their flexibility, but it seems like it's coming at the cost of them having a fixed identity. The only 'Bard' spell as it stands is vicious mockery.

I'd prefer if they made a short 'Bard exclusive' list, and then gave them partial access (a domain list, a 'pick N spells from this list' like magical secrets) to arcane/divine/primal.

We agree on this. I liked when Bards had specific schools but could then go outside of those via Magical Secrets. I also hate that Bards have to choose between being able to do any healing and being able to use Arcane spells until 10th level.

[Bosh]

LOL, once again the cool new thing for fighters (and barbarians) becomes a cool new thing for everyone who can hold a stick.

Which isn't really good for other classes either. Rogue as a squishier fighter with more skills is pretty boring, especially with how they gutted Fast Hands (my favorite rogue subclass ability by a mile).

[Aimeryan]

Searching up forms between adventuring days was never the problem, what was slowing down play was being able to do so every time you activated the ability. That was the biggest issue with 2014 WS.

That was not the feedback I saw in the previous thread about this. The problems were that the player had to go through a number of forms across all the books (100s were commented, but was misleading since there were only a small number between CR1 and CR6), and that this opened up DM material to the player almost unavoidably so. Neither of these issues have been resolved.



The second issue was the very wonky scaling on those forms, whether they made you an immortal wall of meat at low levels or had pitiful damage at high levels - both of these were fixed.

The first was fixed (and wasn't a real thing until 20 in any case), the second was not; an extra 1d8 per turn (2d8 at very high levels) does not make the pitiful damage become good - furthermore, we are losing the option of adding +5 damage to a cantrip for this, so its largely a wash (and not even Moon Druid exclusive, technically). Futhermore, we have to include the lost opportunity cost of casting the cantrip itself or, you know, a leveled Spell.



You're still tanky. You can heal yourself as a bonus action (HW), or even better, refresh your wild shape for a new set of THP (3 THP per level for a 1st level slot is phenomenal scaling) and you don't lose your form when the THP get burned through either. You can also benefit from magic armor now, so 17 isn't your ceiling - in a high level game you could get your paws on +3 half-plate or something.

The AC is not a Moon Druid exclusive - it is present in the base form (better in fact, because we can have a shield). The THP that is the Moon Druid feature is really low for the level. Compared to 5e we only get one Wild Shape charge per SR now (previously two), so that is a further loss of tankiness. I'm also not entirely sure on the Bonus Action 'refresh' - it requires a BA to leave the form too. If we allow that we don't need to first leave the previous Wild Shape form to use Wild Shape again, do we keep the skill and saving throw proficiencies of the previous Beast form? The text says we do. I'm not sure the stacking effects rule is in play here.

The healing sounds like an excellent way to blow Spell Slots for the privilege of entering melee - or, we could just stay ranged and use a Warlock-scale Cantrip (or leveled Spell!).

-----

Again, I would rather take a single partial feature from Circle of Land than the entirety of Circle of the Moon. We can't say we get a 1% increase by taking Circle of the Moon over being subclassless and that therefore Circle of the Moon is great - we also need to look at the opportunity loss of not taking something else. Again, to summarise, Circle of the Moon in this UA replaces our ranged damage with melee damage, prevents most Spellcasting, removes our shield, locks out using another subclass, and in return we get a little THP.

My suggestion would be to consider druid level/2 (rounded down) for form CR instead of /3. It would give a noticeable damage increase over just using a cantrip. It would not sort out the tankiness at all, but at least it gives something in return for choosing Circle of the Moon.

[ZRN]

Which isn't really good for other classes either. Rogue as a squishier fighter with more skills is pretty boring, especially with how they gutted Fast Hands (my favorite rogue subclass ability by a mile).

I think they actually reverted this change and even made it better since now you can use magic items too.

Overall the new new rogue looks like a solid improvement over the PHB rogue to me.

[Bosh]

I think they actually reverted this change and even made it better since now you can use magic items too.

Overall the new new rogue looks like a solid improvement over the PHB rogue to me.

Yeah skimmed through the document and just noticed that. Being able to use magic items as a bonus action gives thief rogues a nice niche that nobody else has. Nice! This playtest is really giving rogues some love, which they really needed overall. There are still issues with bards being able to out-rogue rogues at many things that should be a rogue specialty but at least rogues have SOME kind of niche now.

[Boverk]

Thief rogues lost the ability to ignore attunement requirements, which hurts a little, but they do get to attune to 4 items now.

[Amechra]

Someone who is good at math needs to break down how moving up a damage dice for unarmed attacks means weapons become over powered for monks.

To quote myself from earlier in the thread:


Monks get to pick from these exciting options (I've highlighted the options that are primarily ranged in orange, because they don't work too well with Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows)!


Flex: Quarterstaves and Spears (1d8). Flex is still boring, and is even less useful for Monks than it is for other classes (who at least get the ability to use shields).
Nick: Daggers, Light Hammers, and Sickles (all d4s). Due to a change in this very packet, the Monk is now incapable of picking up Fighting Style feats (something I initially missed), meaning that TWF is kinda off the table.
Push: Greatclubs (1d8). You can't use Martial Arts for this one, so you'd have to be Strength-based (good luck with that, buddy)... but it can reposition enemies, I guess?
Slow: Clubs, Javelins (1d6), Slings (1d4), and Light Crossbows (1d8). This is probably one of the better alternatives, honestly, since it helps you play keepaway more effectively.
Vex: Darts (1d4), Handaxes, and Shortbows (1d6). Seems alright, though the Monk isn't really set up to take advantage of advantage.



Let's crunch some numbers and go into some more depth, shall we?

Baseline Number Increases
Monks get +1 expected damage to their unarmed strikes. They also get a +1 to attack and damage at 19th level because of how the new ASI feat is worded (it increases your cap to 22 at 19th). In practical terms, that's +1/+2 DPR pre-accuracy in Tiers 1 and 2, and +3/+4 DPR pre-accuracy in Tiers 3 and 4, and +6/+8 DPR at the very end of their progression. Not too shabby, but also not too terribly exciting (especially since that "big boost" at 19th is alongside everyone else getting a boost as well).

Weapon Masteries (Damage Oriented)
Of the five Weapon Masteries that Monks get access to, three of them mostly just affect damage. They are:


Flex: This is literally just the baseline for current Monks, who generally run around with a quarterstaff in earlier levels. It's COMPLETELY obsoleted by 11th level, so... yay?
Nick: Assuming that you don't multiclass for the TWF fighting style and don't pick up magic daggers/hammers/sickles, Nick is +0.5 DPR pre-accuracy in Tiers 1 and 2 over Flex, -0.5 DPR pre-accuracy in Tier 3, and -1.5 DPR pre-accuracy in Tier 4. Might be a good call if an ally can slap Divine Favor on you, but otherwise pretty meh.
Vex: Vex is highly dependent on how accurate you are... but it's worth roughly a +2/+3 to hit within normal PC to-hit ranges on your second attack, and +3/+4 on your third attack (assuming you have Extra Attack and are spending both of your Attack attacks on your Vexing weapon). In practical terms, though, it puts you ahead by a tiny bit in T1 and T2 and then stops being worth it in T3 and T4.



Weapon Masteries (Non-Damage)
The only "control" oriented masteries that Monks get are Push and Slow. Let's take a look at them:


Push: Hilariously not worth it, since Greatclubs don't work with Martial Arts. If you want to shove people 10ft on hit (which admittedly is pretty nice), you need Strength, which means that you either have lower Dexterity or lower Wisdom than most Monks of your level, meaning that you've sacrificed AC for the privilege to shove people around.
Slow: Basically a version of Push that works better with Monks. And it's honestly pretty dang good, since your already-impressive mobility gets even better when the people chasing you are slow. You're sacrificing a bit of damage to pull this off, though, since you're capped at a d6 weapon unless you pick up Crossbow Expert (run-n-gun Monk might be a decent-ish build, though, depending on what else we get).



What About The Subclasses We Got?
Open Hand didn't really get anything. They're essentially the baseline Monk, which is... OK? The other three are more interesting:


Shadow initially doesn't seem like it's that damage-focused... but in many fights, the new Shadow Arts is going to be semi-permanent advantage on attack rolls. That's a pretty big effective damage bonus, but we'd have to look at the other three to see how good it really is.
Mercy wasn't printed in the playtest, but we were told to use it as-is. And if you use it as-is... a purely unarmed Mercy Monk using their Hands of Harm is going to be a little bit ahead of the Shadow Monk in DPR. This is a little deceptive, though, since the Shadow Monk's damage lasts all combat (because they only need to spend 1DP per fight to set up their Darkness, and they theoretically have it set up before initiative even starts) and the Mercy Monk's damage happens in bursts. Should come out to being roughly equal in the grand scheme of things, though.
Elements is... interesting. In terms of raw damage, they're not that great (though being able to exploit weaknesses so easily is really nice)... but on the other hand, they work the best with the Light Crossbow + Crossbow Expert run-n-gun Monk build (since they get a 15ft range for their unarmed strikes). The damage boost from Empowered Strikes is just enough to keep you from falling behind, which is nice. You do have the best range and mobility of any of the "core" subclasses, which is nice.


What About Kensei?
We don't know! This is part of the reason I wish they had included the Kensei in the packet. If we assume that they have the same limits of kensei weapons (no heavy or two-handed other than longbows) and that they get the Weapon Masteries of their Kensei weapons... they get some slightly better Flex/Nick/Vex/Slow weapons (+1 die size for each), as well as access to Topple (Battleaxe/Trident: 1d10 damage + forces a dex-based Con save vs. Prone) and Sap (Flail/Morningstar: 1d8 damage + gives disadvantage on the target's next attack before your next turn). On the flip side, they got nerfed by the loss of the Tasha's bonuses, so they'll start falling behind Shadow and Mercy pretty darn quickly.



EDIT: Something I just noticed, which makes me feel slightly better about the Stunning Strike nerf... it now works with any attack made with a simple weapon or an unarmed strike, meaning that you can use it with ranged weapons. So there's that? I expect to see it get taken away again in the next playtest packet.

[Psyren]

That was not the feedback I saw in the previous thread about this. The problems were that the player had to go through a number of forms across all the books (100s were commented, but was misleading since there were only a small number between CR1 and CR6), and that this opened up DM material to the player almost unavoidably so. Neither of these issues have been resolved.

What I said in the previous thread is that I would have preferred refined templates. I still do. But let me explain again why I'm okay with the curation compromise:

1) There are in fact 100+ beasts CR0-CR6 in the 2014 MM. But when a level 18 playtest moon druid activates Wild Shape, they're not choosing among 100+ beasts - they're choosing among five. And realistically, it's even less than 5, because you're likely to have 1-2 utility forms reserved, like a spider or mouse.

2) The boosts to the forms, both offensive and defensive, mean that you're not in a mandatory arms race to try and keep up with the challenges you're facing or else failing to contribute. If you want to primarily be a Dire Wolf druid, your AC and HP will continue to scale, and in fact so will your damage thanks to EF/GEF and Moonbeam. Sure, you'll probably eke out a bit more damage if you go with the Giant Crocodile form instead, but you aren't compelled to go looking for options like that to reach minimal effectiveness.



The first was fixed (and wasn't a real thing until 20 in any case), the second was not; an extra 1d8 per turn (2d8 at very high levels) does not make the pitiful damage become good - furthermore, we are losing the option of adding +5 damage to a cantrip for this, so its largely a wash (and not even Moon Druid exclusive, technically). Futhermore, we have to include the lost opportunity cost of casting the cantrip itself or, you know, a leveled Spell.

False, it was a real thing at all levels. Even at level 2, a typical Moon Druid Brown Bear would leap from 20 HP to 54 HP that the DM would need to burn through. And actually, since they could wild shape twice per SR, it was more like 88 HP. There's just no way to put out damage like that to threaten the druid that wouldn't annihilate every other martial at the table.

Compare to the current druid, who at 2nd level goes from 20HP to 26HP/32 HP. And at 3rd, they're unlikely to go above 29/38 HP. At those levels, it's still a decent buffer, but not one that is impossible for the DM to put in danger.



The AC is not a Moon Druid exclusive - it is present in the base form (better in fact, because we can have a shield).

Who cares if it's not exclusive? All Moon Druids get the base druid features too. You're supposed to evaluate the whole package at a given level.

As for the BA refresh, it specifically says you can use wild shape again, and doesn't say you need to drop form first. THP always keep the highest value.

[paladinn]

Lots to digest here, when I don't have to do something pesky like work.

A few thoughts:

1. Did I miss something, or was there no mention of class "groups"? Honestly I think it's a concept that could be dropped, at least as advertised. Paladins are considered "priests", but they get weapon mastery? I think it's good and proper: devotion paladins are called the "knights in shining armor", so WM is definitely in order. But it does bring up the questions of, "Is WM a warrior-only feature?" and "Are paladins not warriors?" (they did start as a fighter subclass).

2. They need to just drop "spells known" and just go "spells prepared." Across the board. What's the point now?

3. Bards should Not be full-casters. Half maybe.

4. I'm glad they gave rogues WM. Especially for swashbucklers. But again, that busts the "warrior group feature" thing.

I think this was somewhat an improvement over the last one. But I can more see myself gleaning from this for an existing 5e game.

How many more iterations of this will there be?

One other thought.. the ranger's ability to use the Wis bonus to turn a miss into a hit, or to add to damage on a hit, is pretty cool IMO. Definitely stealing for my hybrid game!

[Unoriginal]

Someone who is good at math needs to break down how moving up a damage dice for unarmed attacks means weapons become over powered for monks.

That's... not how it works?

I'm not great at math and I can state that.

[Aimeryan]

False, it was a real thing at all levels.

You said immortal, not tanky. Those are substantially different. I agree they were tanky at all levels (although, the HP itself is misleading due to the low AC - it was more that the DM was discouraged from doing temporary damage if there was anyone else to attack).



Who cares if it's not exclusive? All Moon Druids get the base druid features too. You're supposed to evaluate the whole package at a given level.

Anyone who cares about taking the subclass? The point is to compare the Circle of the Moon subclass to other subclasses, not to Druid as a whole. We can't say 'go Circle of the Moon for the AC' because Circle of the Moon doesn't give the AC. The fact it doesn't throw it away now is good compared to a previous edition, but it is neither a plus or minus for Circle of the Moon compared to other subclasses in the same edition.



As for the BA refresh, it specifically says you can use wild shape again, and doesn't say you need to drop form first. THP always keep the highest value.

Yup, so you are essentially spending Spell Slots on an amount of THP, in return for not being able to cast most Spells, being forced into melee, losing a shield, and not having other subclass features. At level 18 it works fine, I'll say that.

Again, the point being missed here is that Circle of the Moon's offerings are of poor value compared to other Circles'. In fact, it is just poor value outright. The way this UA presents it I would play it by not using it unless something got into melee with me - at which point on my turn I would use my Bonus Action on Wild Shape to turn into something fast and move away, using the THP to absorb the OA if it hits. That is the best case scenario I can see for using it, since I might as well just stay out of Wild Shape and cast cantrips. But you know what? I can do that as any other Circle too, minus the potential OA absorb - meanwhile, a single partial feature of another subclass is something like getting a free casting of Polymorph.

I am underwhelmed.

[Boverk]

I probably wouldn't allow this at a table, but now is the time to get language cleaned up, so I thought I'd bring it up.

Concerning the Monk subclass Warrior of the Elements. When you have the Elemental Attunement feature active your reach with unarmed strikes increases by 10 feet, so you have a 15 foot reach. Can you grapple at this range?

In the unarmed strike section of the glossary, it says that whenever you make an unarmed strike, you choose whether to do damage, grapple, or knock prone.

So lets say level 5, using bonus action attack, 15 ft away

Attack one, stunning strike, stunned and incapacitated

Attack two, knock prone, automatically succeed against the target

Attack three, grapple, automatically succeed against the target and you're grappling a prone target 15 ft away from you.

I think the twitter ruling is you can always attack someone grappling you, but this is kind of weird.

[Unoriginal]

Let's crunch some numbers and go into some more depth, shall we?


Thanks for the breakdown.

I have to ask: assuming they don't change Tavern Brawler, doesn't it become a pretty great feat for Monks?

Also, did the rules-makers ever close the possibility of pushing an enemy vertically rather than horizontallly?

Because if they they didn't that makes the Element Monk a fall damage machine.


EDIT:

I also note that Monks have become adept at forcing STR saves via unarmed strikes via their subclasses, when the typical unarmed strikes options let the target choose if they use a STR save or a DEX save to resist.

[Psyren]

You said immortal, not tanky. Those are substantially different.

Functionally no, they're not. If the only way the DM can put you in danger is to deal enough damage to delete any other character outright, either they're not going to do it or the two of you will enter a 1v1 arms race and leave the rest of the table behind. Neither outcome is good for the game, and the former is going to be the one that gets chosen 90% of the time. Hence, immortal.



Anyone who cares about taking the subclass? The point is to compare the Circle of the Moon subclass to other subclasses, not to Druid as a whole. We can't say 'go Circle of the Moon for the AC' because Circle of the Moon doesn't give the AC.

What? Yes it does. That's a Moon feature, unless you're ignoring shape-shifting completely.

You pick Moon because you want to be a druid that shreds things in melee, not because it's the most powerful. Obviously a druid that uses its actions to cast spells is the most powerful. Comparing subclasses to one another in that way makes no sense.



Yup, so you are essentially spending Spell Slots on an amount of THP, in return for not being able to cast most Spells, being forced into melee, losing a shield, and not having other subclass features. At level 18 it works fine, I'll say that.

Oh no, my poor 1st-level slots, whatever will i do?

I genuinely have no idea how you evaluate subclasses at all.

[MinimanMidget]

Oh no, my poor 1st-level slots, whatever will i do?

Are these the same 1st-level spell slots that not having apparently makes Warlock unplayable?

[Psyren]

Are these the same 1st-level spell slots that not having apparently makes Warlock unplayable?

You know Druids have more than two spell slots right?

Nice try on the gotcha though, better luck next time

[Khosan]

Aw, Oath of the Ancients Paladin's Aura of Warding got changed. Instead of resistance to spell damage, it's resistance to Necrotic, Psychic, and Radiant damage. Feels like a nerf, though I suppose it could be more of a lateral move depending on how common enemy spellcasters are.

[Skrum]

Aw, Oath of the Ancients Paladin's Aura of Warding got changed. Instead of resistance to spell damage, it's resistance to Necrotic, Psychic, and Radiant damage. Feels like a nerf, though I suppose it could be more of a lateral move depending on how common enemy spellcasters are.

Yeah I saw that. I liked the old version. Though it is probably more of a lateral move than I'm thinking. Resistance to necrotic comes up quite a bit - it's my pick for the best resistance to have, actually. Resistance to spells is much more interesting though.

Their channel divinity got a little boost, working in a radius. That's at least situationally useful, which is worlds better than the current iteration.

A tiefling ancients paladin with infernal constitution would have resistance to fire, poison, cold, necrotic, radiant, and psychic. That's quite a list.

[MinimanMidget]

You know Druids have more than two spell slots right?

Sigh. I should have known better than to get involved, but here we are.

Let me simplify my point. Are low level spell slots a valuable resource, or not?

When a bunch of people were arguing for scrapping Warlock casting in favour of half-casting, 1st-level spell slots (or "Shield slots" as apparently that's what people care about) were the main thing they seemed to care about. Now you're telling us they don't matter because Druids have plenty of them.

[Dienekes]

Are these the same 1st-level spell slots that not having apparently makes Warlock unplayable?

I mean, anyone who says the Warlock is unplayable is just objectively wrong.

Hell, release Beastmaster Ranger wasn't unplayable. Orc Wizard back when they had the Int penalty wasn't unplayable. I should know, I played one. There's very little in the game that's unplayable.

But 1st level spellslots are a useful tool at later levels for things like Shield and Silvery Barbs.

Unsurprisingly 2 spells that I think the game would be better without. But that's another line of argument.

But no, old Warlock was not in any way unplayable. You could maybe make the argument that they were less versatile and therefore weaker than the true full casters. Which... again I would argue was a good thing.

[Psyren]

Sigh. I should have known better than to get involved, but here we are.

Let me simplify my point. Are low level spell slots a valuable resource, or not?

When a bunch of people were arguing for scrapping Warlock casting in favour of half-casting, 1st-level spell slots (or "Shield slots" as apparently that's what people care about) were the main thing they seemed to care about. Now you're telling us they don't matter because Druids have plenty of them.

I didn't think this needed to be explained but okay:

Warlocks have two 5th-level spell slots. Using any of those on a 1st level spell, even if we were talking about a relatively great one like Shield, is a huge opportunity cost.

Druids have four 1st-level, three 2nd-level, three 3rd-level and three 4th-level spell slots. And before they even need to spend any of those on recovering wild shape, they get 2-4 uses for free. Opportunity cost is much smaller.

To simplify my point, 13 > 2.

[Zevox]

Okay, I gave my first impressions of the Four Elements Monk (disappointment) earlier. Going over the rest of this now, thoughts...

1) Bard:
- Spellcasting: I like that it's back to being a spells known caster. I greatly dislike the change to its "spell list." So much for its unique identity as a caster, being focused on support and tricky effects, now it just picks whether it wants to be a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, essentially. The previous playtest version wasn't good either in its awkward attempt to make the class fit into their new insistence on having only three spell lists, but it was still better than this.
- Song of Rest is gone. Why?
- Spending a spell slot to regain a use of Bardic Inspiration is a decent addition.
- Countercharm being a reaction instead of something you need to do in advance is a good change.
- New Magical Secrets is all kinds of bad, what the hell WotC? Who thought that was a good idea? Even for the Wizard this would be a terrible idea, and their identity actually is entirely built around knowing all of the spells. Magical Secrets was already a good feature as it was, why do this with it?
- The new capstone is... weird to me. It ties into the silly "words of creation" lore they're adding to the class, which I think is entirely unneeded, but I'm also not sure whether it's too good (two targets for those spells is crazy) or too weak (the Bard still only gets one 9th-level slot per day, which they may not even wish to use on those spells).
- Subclasses:
-- Dance: I like some of what they're doing here thematically, but I dislike the unarmed strike stuff. Why is that flavorful for a dancing Bard? Leave it to the Monks. Give this Bard benefits for using elegant (finesse) weapons instead, and perhaps let them eschew material components that don't have a price tag entirely by making their dancing their "focus." I do kind of wonder about the power creep on Leading Evasion too - does it really need to be able to extend to their allies? Evasion is already a good ability, just getting it is solid. The level 14 ability just being Otto's Irresistible Dance though is lame, they need to do better than that.
-- Glamour: Never had much interest in this subclass, still don't, so I'm skipping it.
-- Lore: Looks pretty much the same as the 5E version, except Peerless Skill now applies to attacks in addition to ability checks, which is a small plus.
-- Valor: Changes here are very small and not really worth remarking upon.
- Overall Impression: The way they're handling spells is the main problem, and it's a big one. Awful decision that deprives the class of a big piece of its identity. Dance is a more appealing new subclass than I expected, but it does need that tweak away from being just “Monk, but better [because it’s a full caster]” to hit the sweet spot I think.

2) Cleric:
- Divine Order revised to only two options and only selected once is a good thing, I'd say.
- Channel Divinity: Regaining one use per short rest and all on a long rest is a fairly elegant way to handle their use, I like it. Divine Spark is fine, but feels like it scales too slowly (seriously, doesn't get the second die until 7th?).
- Divine Intervention is a hell of a lot less flavorful now. Just get a free additional spell casting per day, woop de doo. I know people might want it to be more consistent than the 5E version, but screw that, if you're literally asking your god for direct, personal intervention, it should be rare to be granted and a big deal if it is. Also, looks like this version works on spells that normally have expensive material components, so now level 10+ Clerics can just cast Raise Dead for free once a day. Seems like a bad idea.
- Greater Divine Intervention: Of all the lazy... they're just turning even a more potent version of this, a class capstone, into Wish? Really? Blech.
- Subclasses:
-- General: Happy to see the selection of four here, it's exactly what I would want.
-- Life: Not much difference from the 5E version honestly, nothing worth remarking upon.
-- Light: Domain spells lost Scorching Ray in favor of Moonbeam, which I'm not thrilled with. Revealing Light is neat, but pretty situational, probably one of those abilities that won't be used too often. And that's basically all that worth remarking upon.
-- Trickery: Invoke Duplicity teleports you when you use it now. I guess the idea is to make it harder for enemies to tell which is the real one, but I suspect this will end up making some Clerics use it mostly for the teleport at times; being a bonus action and not using concentration is nice I suppose. Trickster's Magic is neat, though I suspect the list of options for it is a short one, and mostly contained within the Domain spells. Improved Duplicity is better, but I'm not sure it's good yet for a 17th-level ability.
-- War: Nice improvement to the bonus action attack. Don't care about weapon mastery. War God's Blessing is a nice new one. Otherwise not much to say, but I already liked this one.
- Overall Impression: The Cleric remains a class that I think they're largely fine on. I don't like the new Divine Intervention at all, but otherwise, this is the 5E class with some tweaks, and more of those tweaks are at least slightly positive than in most classes.

3) Druid:
- Why on earth are they copy/pasting the Cleric’s new thing onto the Druid with “Primal Order”? Why make them choose between slightly better armor and additional casting/skills? Seems like lazy filler because people were mostly happy with it on the Cleric.
- Why does your familiar from Wild Companion disappear when you take a long rest? Is there really a big need to make Druids recast the spell every day when other classes that get a familiar don’t need to?
- Okay, the big one: Wild Shape. It’s…. considerably better than their last pass, though that’s an incredibly low bar. At the end of the day though, it’s still just a more limited version of the 5E one, and I’d far prefer that. I guess getting rid of the “no swim speed until level 4” thing is a bit nice, never was much reason for that, but I’m not seeing anything else here that I would use.
- Elemental Fury: *Sigh* Okay, potent Cantrip is fine, but the “Primal Strike” ability is… bleh. I just don’t see where that’s coming from, why does a Druid just randomly do extra elemental damage on weapon or wild shape attacks all of the sudden? It already felt out of place to me on the Moon Druid in their last UA, and it’s even more so as a base class thing that also applies to weapons.
- Subclasses:
-- General: Ooh, Circle of the Stars is one of the ones they’re going with? Nice, that’s my favorite, and I wasn’t expecting them to pick it.
-- Land: Eh, this is a weird one, because it’s basically an alternate take on the concept. The 5E version is you having a special connection to the land from your home region; this is you using a special connection to the land wherever you happen to be. Both are valid ideas, but I personally like the former concept better. This is probably more powerful overall, but less appealing to me personally.
-- Moon: Surprise surprise, I prefer the existing 5E version. To comment on the parts that aren’t just Wild Shape buffs, why are they forcing moon-themed things into the subclass? Yes, I’m aware of the name, but that’s never been the concept, the concept is that they’re the Wild Shape Druid. The name almost certainly is an allusion to the most famous parallel to that, Lycanthropes. Give me Elemental Wild Shape over “Moon Step” and “Lunar Form” any day, thank you.
-- Circle of the Sea: So, basically, they took the Coast variation of Circle of the Land and made it its own subclass. I guess it’s fine, but it’s not something I’m super into either.
- Overall Impression: Still one where I’ll stick with the 5E version. I’m not seeing anything I really want to poach here, aside from maybe Wild Companion.

4) Monk:
- Positive out of the gate: Martial arts die starting at d6 and going to d12. I’ve thought that was how it should be since I first saw the 5E Monk.
- “Discipline Points,” right. I’m just gonna stick with Ki, thanks.
- On that note, Ki is still a short rest resource, and you still get the exact same amount of it? What, so the Warlock needs to go as a short rest dependent class, but the Monk still has to stay that way? What’s the logic there? I would figure if they’re changing that on the Warlock, they’d be changing that on the Monk too. Was hoping for it, in fact.
- Step of the Wind giving both dash and disengage now is a good quality-of-life change, makes that Ki point feel better spent.
- Deflect Missiles: Wait, why is this a save instead of an attack when you redirect it now? That’s weird.
- Stunning Strike is now once per turn and only lasts until the start of your next turn. Pretty major nerf, and I don’t know that both halves of it are warranted – though I’ve rarely seen Monks in actual play, so eh, hard for me to judge personally.
- Wait, instead of doing magic damage at 6th, they do Force now? What? Is Wizards just allergic to the idea of magical physical damage now? I know they’ve been doling out other damage types in lieu of that elsewhere, so sadly this isn’t that huge of a surprise, but this one’s just particularly weird.
- “Heightened Metabolism”? Geez, that needs a different name, seems very out of place. Something like “Calming Meditation,” perhaps? Anyway, good effect, though I’d rather they just switched away from Ki being a short rest resource instead.
- Deflect Energy is a nice upgrade to Deflect Missiles, approve there.
- “Disciplined Survivor”? Instead of Diamond Soul? They’re really bad at changing the names of these things, they’re all coming out either bland or out of place.
- Sucblasses:
-- General: The “Warrior of X” naming is bad, feels like it belongs on Fighter subclasses, not Monk. Back to the drawing board with that, please. Especially “Warrior of the Hand,” good heavens…
-- Shadow: Uh-oh, they let them see in their own Darkness effect, that will lead to complaints. They lost Pass Without a Trace and Silence though, and the former in particular feels like a big hit. Improved Shadow Step is nice. Cloak of Shadows is crazy now, wow. I mean, it’s level 17, so appropriately so I think, but one minute of invisibility that doesn’t end when you attack and free Flurry of Blows as long as you don’t end a turn in bright light? Damn.
-- Four “The” Elements: Gave my reaction earlier. Summary: boo. Elemental Attunement is a step in the right direction, almost, except it costs a ki point to turn on, and Acid and Lightning damage are so out of place; should be Thunder for air and Bludgeoning (or maybe Force?) for earth. Beyond that, I’ll say that I miss the variety of options they tried to give with the original. Way too many of them were just “use Ki to cast a spell,” but the ones that weren’t were actually flavorful and cool, and exactly what I want to see out of the class. More of that, less of this, please.
-- Open “The” Hand: This is fine, nothing really to say.
- Overall Impressions: Mixed positive and negative, but the negative is a bigger deal to me that the positive for the most part. Four Elements is probably even more of a disappointment than the original version of it, naming conventions are all over the place now, and they left Ki points as they were aside from the name. On the plus side, bigger Martial Arts dice, Step of the Wind, Deflect Energy, and Cloak of Shadows.

5) Paladin:
- Lay on Hands is a bonus action now? *whistles* Wow, that’s a big buff. I don’t think it needed it either, it’s a big enough heal to be worth spending an action on. Odd choice.
- So, Divine Smite. I do like the idea of the Paladin getting all of the Smite spells prepared by default – my main reason for never preparing those is that I have Divine Smite without needing to prepare a spell anyway, so spells that give me things I don’t otherwise have look more appealing to spend those preparation slots on. So this makes those something I might actually use where I never have before. I do dislike that Divine Smite itself is now also a spell, uses a bonus action, and as such is locked into one per turn. No way I’m playing that way at my table.
- Divine Sense is still a Channel Divinity option, and they’re openly saying that Abjure Foes is replacing Turn the Unholy/Faithless; not a fan of those at all, won’t use them.
- I am pleased to have Aura of Protection back at 6th, unlike last time.
-Subclasses:
-- Devotion: This is fine. Nothing major to say.
-- Glory: Really, this is their pick for the fourth? I felt this was the most boring new Paladin subclass they’ve done, personally. And still is; moving on.
-- Ancients: Nature’s wrath being able to affect more than one creature is a good change, it needs it (my current Ancients Paladin basically never uses it, partially because he can get the same result from a net he carries…), but why is the range still so paltry? I mean, they increased it, but only by 5 ft. Bump that up to at least 30 ft, please. And give them back Turn the Faithless, it’s far more desirable and flavorful. The Aura of Warding nerf is extremely harsh, it now only protects from some pretty uncommon damage types, do not like that at all.
-- Vengeance: Loss of Hunter’s Mark feels like a big deal here – and Compelled Duel actually feels out of place, that’s a spell you use to protect your allies, which isn’t exactly the thing Vengeance Paladins are known for. Beyond that, don’t have anything to say here, the other changes just seem like small buffs, aside from the removal of Abjure Enemy.
- Overall Impressions: Not a fan. I might use this as an excuse to allow use of the Smite spells without requiring preparation, which I already felt would be what they’d need personally, and maybe I’ll use the new Find Steed (though probably tweaked), but otherwise, I’ll stick with the 5E version.

6) Ranger:
- Okay, these last couple are so not my classes that I’m not going to record my thoughts in as much detail, just skim over them and post whatever stands out most to me.
- Hunter’s Mark remains nerfed to damage once per turn I see. That must suck for those who like it.
- Roving is good, glad that’s being brought into the main class. Best addition they made before.
- Beast Master is mechanically so much better than it originally was, but damn the “Beast of the Land, Beast of the Sea,” etc stuff is just as bland on them as it was on Wild Shape.

7) Rogue:
- Seems like there’s really only one thing to comment on with this one: Cunning/Devious Strike. And yeah, that’s quite good. Flavorful and effective, I like it. Not enough to become more interested in playing a Rogue than I was, but still, I’d use that in my games happily.

8) Feats:
- I was going to pass over this like I did spells (just so little worth commenting on there), but then I noticed that the Fighting Style feats now require you to have the Fighting Style class feature. So, now you can only take them as additional fighting styles if you already have one. Which is when they’re the least appealing to take. What? Why?

9) Weapons:
- Looks like everything here is the same as in the last UA, in which case, I remain underwhelmed by Weapon Mastery, and I’m sure my group will just stick with Weapon Maneuvers instead. Which is why I ignored them when they popped up on the Paladin, etc.

[Leon]

Hunter Subclass is looking good again, Ranger over all is good.

[Pex]

Generic impressions.

It is 5.5E, not 6E. They're going back to 2014 class progressions of abilities. While Paladins and Druids get a slight nerf it's not significantly worse than now. Overall everyone gets buffed. When it becomes official I expect to hear people complaining about power creep. Personally I can acknowledge there is a power creep, but I do not find power creep to be an inherently atrocious thing to condemn. To buy new stuff players will want equal or better than what was the old stuff. Any game company is entitled to have players want to buy the new stuff. Whatever one's issues with WOTC this is not a bad thing they're doing.

[Jerrykhor]

After the whole OGL fiasco that hurt their goodwill so much, i actually expected more powercreep. But nooooo, they had to nerf Divine Smite and Stunning Strike, and gave Monk a boring ass unimaginative capstone to boot. By level 20 a monk should be going full HAM on whatever anime shtick they have been riding on the past 19 levels. I feel like they like to design weak abilities that encourage players to spend their Ki Di points stupidly. Why keep their useless ass alive when they are not going to contribute much in a fight? The Monk is just going to do what he does every round: Fail to stun the enemy and do some paltry damage, maybe setup a Quivering Palm that also fails, doing as much damage as a Fighter's 2 weapon swings. The way they said QP is too powerful is like the previous UA that said Twin metamagic is too powerful.

Where are they getting these feedbacks?

[Kane0]

You know, i was pleasantly surprised. I went in with low expectations, looking for things i could steal for my own revisions, and found quite a treasure trove. Not bad for free.

Edit: I'd call it 5eR

[Hael]

I dont understand what they’re doing in general with the monk chassis. Why do they think going from a d10 to a d12 is relevant damage? I mean they say as much in their document…. Are we looking at different math?

Further the weapon mastery thing just further dissuades the unnarmed side of things..

Again, it seems like they are massively mis valuing certain class features and it has turned much of this playtest into a fiasco of going after the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Examples include but are not limited to features like wildshape/bardic inspiration, hunters mark/hex, divine smite and stunning strike..

[Hael]

You know, i was pleasantly surprised. I went in with low expectations, looking for things i could steal for my own revisions, and found quite a treasure trove. Not bad for free.

Edit: I'd call it 5eR

I would say the positive things to steal are the weapon masteries (appropriately buffed/nerfed) and I quite like the new rogue ability (thumbs up from me). I havent quite digested the rest yet.

[Speely]

They really can't get Monks right, can they? How can they think that a tiny buff to MA dice and a Step of the Wind buff (which I like a lot, btw) is enough to nerf the hell out of Stunning Strike and make this "Warrior" class worse at using weapons than some Priests and Experts?

Big whiff.

[Zhorn]

I quite like the new rogue ability (thumbs up from me).
I'm mostly liking that too.

two parts concern me a little
1) The overlap Cunning Strike and Weapon Mastery have with Battle Master Maneuvers.
I like both of these as additions; I'm just hoping there's something fighters are getting that doesn't leave them feeling robbed.

2) Poison... feels like it just appears out of nowhere. Yes the Rogue needs to have a Poisoners Kit on their person to use this; but the poison doesn't actually need to exist prior to application of the sneak attack. Mostly just dislike it because of the video-game logic is uses. Getting to apply a pre-existing poison the rogue already has in their inventory would be how I'd houserule that.

[Goobahfish]

OK, so this playtest document is a bit... gutless. Which does not bode well.

The Druid Playtest. Controversial. The Warlock Playtest. Controversial.

Here we have... a few tweaks. A solidifying of a few mechanics. A lot of 'tactical retreats'.

What I like
Cleric
I think Cleric has gone from best designed class... to slightly better but still best designed class.

Druid
The Wildshape changes... are... acceptable. They are better than both the 2014 and the original playtest document. Having a limited list and the bonus HP mechanic, the AC mechanic are close enough to elegant that I can get behind it. No more book-diving mid-session. I am surprised Moon doesn't get a few extra choices but that will probably happen at some point. In general, I feel like Druid is becoming more appealing but without it being because of straight 'buffs', more a lot of QOL changes.

Rogue
Trading sneak attack for status effects sounds... interesting. This may need to stew a while longer and it does make me question the need for Weapon Masteries if they already have their own Roguish weapon mastery system.

What I dislike
Rogue
Rogues return to janky BS with their off-turn sneak attacks. It is fine to have an off-turn sneak attack. Just not with an on-turn sneak attack either before or after (not sure which). It just encourages the most gamish behaviour for optimisation.

Ranger
Hunter's Mark. Honestly... rangers might be in an OK place balance-wise, but thematic/mechanics wise they are a dumpster fire. Having a concentration-based minor damage as a core class feature is so... lazy

Bard
Don't get me wrong, the college of dance is a sweet concept. Execution-wise... OK, so is it a monk? I mean... it does more damage on an unarmed strike at several levels... Honestly, this class makes me squint at monk and ask, 'what is the point of you?'. A full caster, from every spell school who also gets Monk defence, Monk unarmed strikes and Bardic inspiration. Ok, so you don't get extra attacks literally all the time, but... you are a full caster, with every spell list. Also expertise (in say athletics and acrobatics?).

---

I have more thoughts, but I didn't want to make a laundry list yet. I still need to process Monk.

[paladinn]

You know, i was pleasantly surprised. I went in with low expectations, looking for things i could steal for my own revisions, and found quite a treasure trove. Not bad for free.

Edit: I'd call it 5eR

Totally this! Idk if I'll ever play any edition RAW again. I've become too much of a tinkerer

[Unoriginal]

Edit: I'd call it 5eR

I'll call it 5e Retcon, Remake or Reboot.

5eRRoR for short.

[Beelzebub1111]

Druid has animal forms in wildshape again and this time it doesn't give them infinite hitpoints, and throwing decent limits on it as well. Good job wotc. I'm not against template forms like they have in PF2e but the way they were implemented in the previous version was ass.

Cleric Thaumaturge/Protector once again taking inspiration from PF2e with warpriest and cloistered cleric. Interesting that the domains don't seem to be tied to any particular deity, in fact the deity seems irrelevant to the cleric which just seems wrong to me.

All of this is fine but none of this addresses my issues with 5e as a whole. which can be summed up as follows: "AD&D gave DMs tools to challenge players, 5e gives players tools to challenge DMs" I really REALLY need to see some monster stat blocks or any tools for the Dungeon Master before I can pass judgement on any of this stuff. It's neat and cool and flavorful for players, but what is going to change to make things easer for the DM to run?

[Arkhios]

as Paladin to the Bone, obviously I checked their changes first. Not sure how I feel about Smite being a spell now, but at a glance it seems better than the previous iteration. At least all Smites seem to follow a similar pattern now, which is great.

[GooeyChewie]

as Paladin to the Bone, obviously I checked their changes first. Not sure how I feel about Smite being a spell now, but at a glance it seems better than the previous iteration. At least all Smites seem to follow a similar pattern now, which is great.

Personally I was hoping they would go the exact opposite route and make all the Smites non-spell features for Paladin. But either way, I'm glad they are (mostly) off the Divine list, so that Clerics don't get free access to them.

[Unoriginal]

Personally I was hoping they would go the exact opposite route and make all the Smites non-spell features for Paladin. But either way, I'm glad they are (mostly) off the Divine list, so that Clerics don't get free access to them.

Can Bards have access to them?

[Boverk]

Can Bards have access to them?


Only Searing and Wrathful Smite, the rest are paladin only

[Boverk]

I just realized that the Moon Druid can't cast the new Barkskin spell (from the 2022 Expert Classes UA) while wildshaped.

It is a transmutation spell that gives temp HP equal to your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus at the start of each of your turns. There's definitely better things to concentrate on, but I thought it was interesting.

[Psyren]

Can Bards have access to them?

Bards cannot access the class-specific spells, not even via Magical Secrets.


After the whole OGL fiasco that hurt their goodwill so much, i actually expected more powercreep. But nooooo, they had to nerf Divine Smite and Stunning Strike, and gave Monk a boring ass unimaginative capstone to boot. By level 20 a monk should be going full HAM on whatever anime shtick they have been riding on the past 19 levels. I feel like they like to design weak abilities that encourage players to spend their Ki Di points stupidly. Why keep their useless ass alive when they are not going to contribute much in a fight? The Monk is just going to do what he does every round: Fail to stun the enemy and do some paltry damage, maybe setup a Quivering Palm that also fails, doing as much damage as a Fighter's 2 weapon swings. The way they said QP is too powerful is like the previous UA that said Twin metamagic is too powerful.

Where are they getting these feedbacks?

Agree that Monk is underwhelming, and I'm not happy with Paladin getting half their subclass features at level 15+ again, but Rogue and Ranger were definitely buffed.


I just realized that the Moon Druid can't cast the new Barkskin spell (from the 2022 Expert Classes UA) while wildshaped.

It is a transmutation spell that gives temp HP equal to your spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus at the start of each of your turns. There's definitely better things to concentrate on, but I thought it was interesting.

Honestly, 2014 Moon Druids shouldn't be concentrating on barkskin either, it's a trap. I don't think it was or should have ever been for moon druids, so I'm okay with this.

Moon Druids should be concentrating on Hunter's Mark or Moonbeam unless survivability is a concern, and honestly, I'm not sure why it would be.

[Boverk]

Moon Druids should be concentrating on Hunter's Mark or Moonbeam unless survivability is a concern, and honestly, I'm not sure why it would be.

I agree...moonbeam will probably be my spell of choice if wild shaped...the action-free repositioning is really nice. Using your level 1 feat to get the shield spell will also be pretty common I imagine.


Question about the new Warrior of the Elements Monk level 17 ability Elemental Epitome. While you have Elemental Attunement active, when you use step of the wind, your speed increases by 20 ft and you get some other stuff.

Is the 20 ft speed increase before (so effectively a 40 ft jump in speed) or after the dash? From the language, I'm interpreting it as before dash is applied.

[Hurrashane]

My biggest complaint with the new UA is that Arcane Tricksters still can't cast mage hand silently. They should either be able to cast it silently or have it last way longer than mage hand usually does so you can use it effectively when sneaking.

Kinda dumb that the stealth class needs to chant in a clear voice when they want to use the signature spell of their subclass. Oh you can make it invisible, cool, but all the guards know you're here so what does that matter?

[togapika]

Can someone explain to me the idea behind Charisma to armor class? Like Dexterity is dodging, Wisdom is sensing their movements or something, even Intelligence and Constitution make sense, but what is Charisma supposed to be?

[Boverk]

Can someone explain to me the idea behind Charisma to armor class? Like Dexterity is dodging, Wisdom is sensing their movements or something, even Intelligence and Constitution make sense, but what is Charisma supposed to be?

A weird combination of Intimidation, too pretty/likeable to hit, and puppy-dog eyes?

Anime force of personality aura?

[Skrum]

Can someone explain to me the idea behind Charisma to armor class? Like Dexterity is dodging, Wisdom is sensing their movements or something, even Intelligence and Constitution make sense, but what is Charisma supposed to be?

It's entirely mechanically-driven. Bards use Cha, so a monk-themed bard gets Cha to AC, otherwise they'd be too MAD to play. As for an in-world explanation, yeah, there's nothing. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[LudicSavant]

The Monk... got severely nerfed?

Well... I guess I didn't see that coming.

[Frogreaver]

Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

[ZRN]

The Monk... got severely nerfed?

Well... I guess I didn't see that coming.

Elaborate? The monk weapon changes?

EDIT: Stunning 1/round too, which hurts, but "severe"?

[Atranen]

Generic impressions.

It is 5.5E, not 6E. They're going back to 2014 class progressions of abilities. While Paladins and Druids get a slight nerf it's not significantly worse than now. Overall everyone gets buffed. When it becomes official I expect to hear people complaining about power creep. Personally I can acknowledge there is a power creep, but I do not find power creep to be an inherently atrocious thing to condemn. To buy new stuff players will want equal or better than what was the old stuff. Any game company is entitled to have players want to buy the new stuff. Whatever one's issues with WOTC this is not a bad thing they're doing.


You know, i was pleasantly surprised. I went in with low expectations, looking for things i could steal for my own revisions, and found quite a treasure trove. Not bad for free.

Edit: I'd call it 5eR


I'll call it 5e Retcon, Remake or Reboot.

5eRRoR for short.

I agree with all of the above; it's shaping up to be a much more minor revision than it could have been. I for one am pretty happy about that. I'll buy 5E "remastered" with some small balance changes and housekeeping, and happily run it. Cleric, Druid, and Rogue all fit that mold well, and I hope don't see too many further changes. Monk and Bard could use another pass.

There are several "video games" changes which I don't care for. +CHA to armor, there's no in world justification. Someone mentioned the rogue poison thing. Swapping out weapon masteries and the druid swapping out wild shape forms on a LR is that as well (does the druid just forget how to do that?) But thus far they're minor enough for me to be ok with or gloss over. I can just assume the rogue is making poison constantly during downtime (and as a DM, I'd be permissive if they wanted to use that poison for something else).


Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

I haven't gone into the in detail, but I don't like what I've heard. It sounds like a lot of fiddly little modifiers that go against the simpler design philosophy of 5E. Tracking lots of attack riders will be a pain in play as well. I'd rather they gave martials more active abilities (like the battlemaster or now rogue ones), that perhaps keyed off certain weapon types.

[Skrum]

The Monk... got severely nerfed?

Well... I guess I didn't see that coming.

Idk about severely, but they certainly didn't get the buffs they needed. +1 damage is such a half-measure, it's almost insulting lol. Step of the Wind is a nice little perk. Dashing and Disengaging gives them pretty extreme mobility (disengage protects you from all OA's for the rest of the turn, so 100' of movement with no OA's to worry about for a bonus action is pretty nice).

The 1 min SR at level 7 is notable. It's a patch on top of a bigger problem, but it's something. It still takes the DM running a predictable encounter schedule to be used close to optimally, but again, it's something.

I don't care for stunning fist. I think it's bad game design. Either it works and the boss gets turned into a non-encounter or it fails and the monk wasted a chunk of their resources (this is especially true of machine gunning stunning strikes). In that regard, I don't mind seeing it get restricted to 1/turn. But as a chunk of the monk's kit, the fact they didn't really get anything in particular to make up for it is a feel bad.

The monk subclasses seem to be getting a facelift though - the changes to Shadow are notable and fun. Darkness costs 1 point, they can see through their own darkness (no more fighter dip!!), AND it can be moved? Like that's a huge deal. Losing pass without trace sucks, but overall, I'd make that trade, no hesitation.

Elements monk....well ok, maybe it's just Shadow that got a boost lol. Elements and Open Hand are at best getting tiny boosts, but since they are starting from an incredibly anemic place, it's barely worth mentioning.

[False God]

Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

I would personally rather see "weapon masteries" as something the individual is capable of applying to any weapon within a certain grouping (IE: this guy does special things with a bladed weapon or that lady does cool things with ranged weapons). I like riders, they make weapon attacks more interesting, but they should IMO, be something you have trained to do, not something that is attached to the dagger you picked up.

I think the "random loot" aspect of D&D is inherently flawed. Throwing out random stuff and forcing the players to adapt or suck is IMO a generally un-fun approach to gaming. It's worsened by the attitude that many DMs project when doing so of "Well, I gave you magic stuff! You just have to change up your whole character concept!" which is IMO, brought on by basically the same attitude from WotC, which is on display in this updates: "Well I gave you cool stuff! You just have to play the class that can use it!"

There's a level of indifference promoted here towards the desires of the player, that so long as they provide anything regardless of quality or usefulness, their role has been fulfilled and they need not make any further effort.

[Dienekes]

Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

To me all of these issues have more to do with implementation than concept.

They could have gone "Weapon Mastery" as essentially a toggle. You either have it all or you don't. And if you have it you can use all of them for weapon.

They could divorce mastery from weapon completely. So if someone learned the equivalent of Vex, then they can use it on all their weapons. Honestly half of the masteries don't really make sense for what they're applied to anyway.

They could have done a ranked system where every weapon has maybe 2 or 3 masteries and so focusing down a Figther/Barbarian/true Warrior path allows for more flexibility for whatever weapon they choose.

They could do a multitude of things that could allow actually engaging weapon mechanics that don't step on the toes of the loot accumulation game. But they did this version.

Personally, I will say if my only options are loot accumulation or this version of masteries. I'd probably slink a bit to masteries. Mostly because I've never really been a player that cares all that much about loot. But making my character feel more competent at what they're supposedly trained to do? That makes me happy.

[Psyren]

Concerning Bards getting every single spell list, I'm not a fan of that; it just makes them sorcerers with a lot more options, and with inspiration and skills instead of metamagic.

I'm okay with the idea of Bards being able to pull spells from every tradition, but not every school. I would let them keep Arcane/Divine/Primal, in fact they can pull from all three even at level 1, but they should be restricted to Illusion, Enchantment, Divination, Transmutation, and Abjuration. That would give them all the tools they need to pick up the toys they had before, including the new ones like Fly and Polymorph, but also be able to grab songs of healing and resistance and protection from energy etc. And then if you do want the bard that can Fireball or Plane Shift or Spirit Guardians, that's fine too, that's where Magical Secrets comes in - letting you get extra spells known from anywhere.


Can someone explain to me the idea behind Charisma to armor class? Like Dexterity is dodging, Wisdom is sensing their movements or something, even Intelligence and Constitution make sense, but what is Charisma supposed to be?

Performance is a Cha-based skill in D&D, that includes (and has always included) Dance. It's a combination of your movements being too intricate to predict or so elaborate that they impact your opponent's ability to target you effectively.



Is the 20 ft speed increase before (so effectively a 40 ft jump in speed) or after the dash? From the language, I'm interpreting it as before dash is applied.

It's definitely not clear whether its intended to be an increase to the base speed (so 40 total) or an increase to the final speed (i.e. functionally a base increase of 10.)


My biggest complaint with the new UA is that Arcane Tricksters still can't cast mage hand silently. They should either be able to cast it silently or have it last way longer than mage hand usually does so you can use it effectively when sneaking.

Kinda dumb that the stealth class needs to chant in a clear voice when they want to use the signature spell of their subclass. Oh you can make it invisible, cool, but all the guards know you're here so what does that matter?

I'd say the main use of it is to disarm traps from range but I agree, some means of hiding what you're doing more effectively makes sense.

[Boverk]

I kind of like the elements monk.


It doesn't take an action to activate Elemental Attunement for 1 discipline point
While active, 15 ft reach on unarmed strikes and variable damage types is neat.
While active, your unarmed strikes can push back for free
At level 10, Step of the Wind gives you 10 minutes of non-concentration fly speed for 1 discipline point


I do agree that the base class needs some type of bump though.

[Rukelnikov]

In general I'm very disappointed, not gonna write a review cause I don't really feel like it's worth it.

Regarding the Monk speed increase, the way dash works is not an increase to your speed, dash let's you move your speed. So an increase to speed of 20 means your move has an extra 20 feet, and since you dashed you can move your speed which for this rounds has an extra 20, so it's 40 extra feet over just dashing.

[ZRN]

I'll say something nice about this packet: after they put out that video a couple weeks ago saying experimentation time is over, I was worried that this packet would have nothing new for rogues, but in fact they pulled out a new fairly complex/interesting system (Cunning Strike) and added in other buffs/changes (Reliable Talent at 7 notably). So I'm a bit more hopeful that the next iteration of the warriors (including monk) and mages will have some more new ideas and iterations rather than just "revert the changes that scored <70%."

[Unoriginal]

I agree with all of the above; it's shaping up to be a much more minor revision than it could have been.

I think you misunderstood my point, because I do not agree with that at all.

[Psyren]

I'll say something nice about this packet: after they put out that video a couple weeks ago saying experimentation time is over, I was worried that this packet would have nothing new for rogues, but in fact they pulled out a new fairly complex/interesting system (Cunning Strike) and added in other buffs/changes (Reliable Talent at 7 notably). So I'm a bit more hopeful that the next iteration of the warriors (including monk) and mages will have some more new ideas and iterations rather than just "revert the changes that scored <70%."

Agreed, there are still a few big swings being tested. Bards becoming omnicasters is not something I expected in the revision, and while I have problems with it I do think there are good ideas there.

[animorte]

Anime force of personality aura?
+7 :smallbiggrin:

I'll put in my ha-penny's worth of opinion in the next day or two. In short thus far...

I love the Rogue's riders.

I dislike reverting the subclass progression. There should never have been that big a gap between subclass features in the first place. Makes it feel more like 5.5e though.

[Hurrashane]

Agreed, there are still a few big swings being tested. Bards becoming omnicasters is not something I expected in the revision, and while I have problems with it I do think there are good ideas there.

I don't have too much of an issue with the bard casting personally. I love the idea of playing a druidic or divine bard. And given their jack of all trades schtick it works that they can eventually pull from every list.

Though with that approach I feel it might be better to go back to spells known, rather than them having access to pretty much every spell every day.

[ZRN]

Agreed, there are still a few big swings being tested. Bards becoming omnicasters is not something I expected in the revision, and while I have problems with it I do think there are good ideas there.

Yeah, I haven't been reading the wording on the Spellcasting feature in previous packets but maybe I should have been? I kind of like that there's now a new tier of "prepared" casting where you can change one spell per long rest, so rangers and paladins are adaptable but don't have to go over their entire spell list every LR. It's interesting that they're reverting bards all the way back to "change spells only when you level up" like sorcerers, but I think it's a necessary change with the breadth of spells they now have available.

That said, the "pick a list" thing seems weird! You just can't play a "traditional" 5e bard (lots of arcane enchantment/illusion stuff with some heals) until level 10 (or 6 as lore bard). And how is a dude with the full wizard or cleric or druid spell list, but with expertise and bardic inspiration instead of those classes' other features, not just a variant wizard/cleric/druid rather than its own thing? I feel like this version will need some revision too because (1) you can't recreate a typical "bardy" feel with this setup, and (2) the most optimized versions of this class will almost certainly feel nothing like a traditional "bard."

[ZRN]

I don't have too much of an issue with the bard casting personally. I love the idea of playing a druidic or divine bard. And given their jack of all trades schtick it works that they can eventually pull from every list.

Though with that approach I feel it might be better to go back to spells known, rather than them having access to pretty much every spell every day.

They did go back to spells known, but for insane reasons are calling it "spells prepared" and burying in the ability text that you can't change any of the spells you "prepare" until you level up.

[Hurrashane]

They did go back to spells known, but for insane reasons are calling it "spells prepared" and burying in the ability text that you can't change any of the spells you "prepare" until you level up.

Oh. Yeah, I did not get that from a reading of the text. Don't really see the point of unifying terms if they're different. Wizard, clerics, and Bards all prepare differently.

Ok, so yeah, that solves my only issue with it then. Nomenclature notwithstanding, them having any list but only getting a handful definitely makes them seem like dabblers.

[Atranen]

I think you misunderstood my point, because I do not agree with that at all.

No doubt I did. My apologies.

[Psyren]

I don't have too much of an issue with the bard casting personally. I love the idea of playing a druidic or divine bard. And given their jack of all trades schtick it works that they can eventually pull from every list.

Though with that approach I feel it might be better to go back to spells known, rather than them having access to pretty much every spell every day.

My problem with it is that "divine bards" and "nature bards" should still be able to use illusions and enchantments, especially at low levels, but the ones on the Divine and Primal lists suck. I don't want to be a cleric with crappy armor who plays the lute, I want to be a bard.


Oh. Yeah, I did not get that from a reading of the text. Don't really see the point of unifying terms if they're different. Wizard, clerics, and Bards all prepare differently.

Ok, so yeah, that solves my only issue with it then. Nomenclature notwithstanding, them having any list but only getting a handful definitely makes them seem like dabblers.

Yes, they are functionally spells known casters despite using the phrase "spells prepared."

And a big part of the issue I have is they don't have "a handful" - they get up to 22, just like Sorcerers. And at level 10 onward they have far more versatility in their selection than Sorcerers too. It's not like a Sorcerer can decide* to grab Revivify or Spirit Guardians or Freedom of Movement or Heal.

*without a subclass like Divine Soul

[P. G. Macer]

All right, I’ve been holding off on giving my two copper pieces for a while now, but I’m giving in to temptation now:

Bard is a mess. A glorious mess, but a mess nonetheless. In its current implementation, it’s a little too flexible IMHO; like Psyren said, if feels like it steps on the sorcerer’s toes too much, just without metamagic. Getting access to all the spell lists at 10th level is frankly ridiculous, and even having just one of the three lists to choose from is near-unprecedented flexibility that I feel makes the class blander, especially compared to the other full casters. The Font of Inspiration and Countercharm buffs are appreciated, though.
The College of Dance is amazing, except for the 14th-level feature, which is both pathetically weak and horribly uncreative. It feels like a better monk than the Monk, though, which means it needs some tuning down.
Glamour is an improvement from the Xanathar’s Guide version, though in my opinion still nothing to write home about.
Lore is very much like the 2014 PHB version, except adapted to the D&Done’s three-spell-list system and therefore thankfully no longer able to poach spells meant to be class-exclusive such as find steed.
Valor is just minor but appreciated buffs.

Cleric is a mixed bag. Putting Divine Order at 1st level makes the class multiclassing dip-bait once more. I know it’s necessary in order to allow martially oriented clerics to not be near-useless as close-quarters combatants at 1st level, but the solution here is to change the 2014 multiclassing rules, not contort all the classes so as to fit them. The damage-dealing half of Divine Spark seems laughably weak beyond 2nd level, especially for a use of Channel Divinity. Smite Undead seems like a lateral move from Destroy Undead. Blessed Strikes is an improvement on the subclass-determined 8th-level feature from 2014 for the most part, though Divine Strike being limited to necrotic or radiant damage eliminates a lot of flavor and even some combat potency from subclasses, e.g. the (currently absent) Tempest Domain’s DS’s thunder damage. Like the Dance Bard’s Irresistible Dance feature, I’m not a fan of Commune, or of “gain 1-2 spells as an entire (sub)class feature” in general. The Divine Intervention improvements are very much appreciated, however.
I still dislike classes whose subclasses offer bonus spells coming online at 3rd level (I know WotC’s reasoning for it, but it feels like they’re coddling new players too much at the expense of the quality of the game for everyone else), but at least now the Domains get 1st-level options. The Life Domain is still solid, but the exchange rate from CD to spell slot in Preserve Life is onerous.
I really enjoy the changes to the Light Domain’s Domain Spells, as the fewer fire spells makes it feel less like it’s doing double duty as both the pyro-cleric and the holy offense cleric. Revealing light feels like just a glorified version of a spell the Domain already automatically gets, and I see the light-emitting part of the feature sometimes being a hindrance rather than a benefit.
The Trickery Domain got one heck of a buff, and a needed one at that. I have nothing but good things to say about the changes.
The War Domain also got some needed buffs, though as I review the UA PDF for this comment, I get more and more irritated at the frequency of a spell a caster already has masquerading as an entire class or subclass feature, even with bells and whistles like War God’s Blessing.

I’m ever-so-slightly disappointed by this version of the Druid, but I was in the minority who felt the previous playtest druid was a step in the right direction. Druidic has been turned from a ribbon feature to yet another spell-as-feature :smallmad:. The Warden option for Primal Order presents a similar problem to the cleric’s Protector Divine Order. I have little to say about Wild Companion; as a feature imported from Tasha’s, it is fine. I still think the template statblock route would be better for wild shape; the previous version just needed add-ons to make it less generic. That said, the current playtest version is okay, I guess. Wild Resurgence is neat too, but not mind-blowing, as is Elemental Fury. As for Commune with Nature, see my comment about the Cleric’s Commune feature. Archdruid no longer gives unlimited WS, which honestly is probably for the best.
I overall think the new Land Druid is a vast improvement over the old one, except that RAW there’s an incompatibility between Elemental Fury’s Potent Spellcasting and the lands’ cantrips, and I find it extremely annoying that the Arid Land option gets fireball and fire bolt when the Tasha’s version of the Wildfire Druid (which, given that this UA tells us which 4 Druid Circles are making the 2024 PHB, we’re still expected to use) does not.

This post has gone on long enough, and I have IRL obligations, so I’ll (hopefully) get to the other classes covered, Weapon Mastery, and general remarks sometime soon.

[Hurrashane]

My problem with it is that "divine bards" and "nature bards" should still be able to use illusions and enchantments, especially at low levels, but the ones on the Divine and Primal lists suck. I don't want to be a cleric with crappy armor who plays the lute, I want to be a bard.



Yes, they are functionally spells known casters despite using the phrase "spells prepared."

And a big part of the issue I have is they don't have "a handful" - they get up to 22, just like Sorcerers. And at level 10 onward they have far more versatility in their selection than Sorcerers too. It's not like a Sorcerer can decide* to grab Revivify or Spirit Guardians or Freedom of Movement or Heal.

*without a subclass like Divine Soul

I don't really see illusions and enchantments as a core part of the bard. They can be, certainly. But I don't view them as required. Heck, I don't even think spellcasting is required for a bard. For me an entertainer background mastermind rogue can read as a Bard.

Good point about the spell selection stuff. I don't know how much of a problem it'd be in actual play though.

[paladinn]

I think the "pick your list" thing for Bards is a way of acknowledging the multiple interpretations of a "bard." In Celtic culture, a bard was a druid. In others, bards had a clerical role of sorts; maybe the "dervish" idea? In much of medieval Europe, a bard was an entertainer; so wizard/illusionist fits the bill.

Regardless, outside of the druid role, I don't see where a bard should be a full caster, especially given their other abilities and their function as a "face" or "jack of all trades" or skill-monkey. But.. now that they've been framed that way, I guess it can't be taken back. Kinda like paladin spellcasting.

At this point I'm mainly looking for stuff to glean for my C&C game. Lots of glean-able stuff here!

[Psyren]

I don't really see illusions and enchantments as a core part of the bard. They can be, certainly. But I don't view them as required. Heck, I don't even think spellcasting is required for a bard. For me an entertainer background mastermind rogue can read as a Bard.

The Bard description in the playtest literally contradicts this. They are "masters of magic" who harness the very Words of Creation, not mere minstrels/troubadours/jongleurs. You might not view spellcasting as intrinsic to WotC's Bard, but I can 100% assure you that they do - and so do I.


I think the "pick your list" thing for Bards is a way of acknowledging the multiple interpretations of a "bard." In Celtic culture, a bard was a druid. In others, bards had a clerical role of sorts; maybe the "dervish" idea? In much of medieval Europe, a bard was an entertainer; so wizard/illusionist fits the bill.

Regardless, outside of the druid role, I don't see where a bard should be a full caster, especially given their other abilities and their function as a "face" or "jack of all trades" or skill-monkey. But.. now that they've been framed that way, I guess it can't be taken back. Kinda like paladin spellcasting.

At this point I'm mainly looking for stuff to glean for my C&C game. Lots of glean-able stuff here!

I don't mind picking from any list, but I do mind that picking a list locks out other Bardic staples until 10th level, at which point you suddenly become the most versatile spellcaster in the entire game.

My proposal is to unfetter the lists but limit the schools.

[Boverk]

So maybe bard gets a choice similar to warlock at level 1?

Tome, Blade or familiar for warlock

Clown, Minstrel, or Scallywag for Bard? (or some other group of choices)

or just have a few illusion, enchantment, etc. spells that are available to bard regardless of the domain picked, and reign in magical secrets a bit.

[paladinn]

Is there anything that defines "Compelled Duel"? Since Vengeance Paladins don't get Hunters Mark anymore. Sigh.

[Zevox]

Is there anything that defines "Compelled Duel"? Since Vengeance Paladins don't get Hunters Mark anymore. Sigh.
It's an existing spell. Short summary: if the target fails a wisdom save, they have disadvantage on attacks against anyone but you, and can't move more than 30 feet from you unless it succeeds on another wisdom save. Ends if you attack anyone besides the target, anyone besides you attacks the target, or you end your turn more than 30 feet from the target.

[paladinn]

It's an existing spell. Short summary: if the target fails a wisdom save, they have disadvantage on attacks against anyone but you, and can't move more than 30 feet from you unless it succeeds on another wisdom save. Ends if you attack anyone besides the target, anyone besides you attacks the target, or you end your turn more than 30 feet from the target.

Oooook. I'll just stick with Hunters Mark

[One Tin Soldier]

:smallsmile:

Told you so.

This is going to sound like I’m making excuses, but by “purely back to the 2014 version” I meant the whole feature. This still has significant changes from that version, even if it is going back to using printed Beast statblocks. If that’s all you meant, then I apologize for misinterpreting you.

I’m ok with this version of Wild Shape. In particular, I think that the Moon Druid version will be much better balanced, especially the limited temp HP (that still gets to be significant). It still has the problem where some forms will be outright better than others, pushing Druid players towards being bears or giant wolves even if they’d rather be, say, a giant otter. But it’s acceptable.

As for the other stuff…

Monk still needs a bit of work, I think, but I like what I’m seeing so far. I think if they just let the new and improved martial arts die apply to simple weapons, they’ll keep up in damage just fine. Maybe they already do, I haven’t done the math yet. I know that Weapon Mastery contributes more to damage output than it first appears.
Making Stunning Strike apply once per turn makes me feel a lot better about it, honestly. It frees up some real room in the power budget (which appears to be distributed to the new die size and some subclass features), and removes its most annoying use case (spending all your Ki in one round to either end the encounter or do nothing). I actually also think this will fix people’s ki drain problems. I’ve played monks a couple times now and never went really hard on spamming the ability, and I usually found myself with points left over at the end of fights.
Warrior of the Elements is good now. Cool.

Rogue’s Cunning Strikes are a thing of beauty. So many ways to mess with your enemies on demand. And it even has what I’ve been wanting for the Fighter and Barbarian: higher level options that are more powerful! Great design, love it.

[LudicSavant]

Elaborate?

Here's my very early first impressions for Monks and all of their subclasses:


Heightened Metabolism is a straight up buff to the Monk's resource longevity. Neat! The most positive thing here. The main question after that is just how much they're getting done per turn.


The Monk's fists doing Force damage rather than Magical BPS is a slight improvement (at least in 2014 5e it's resisted by fewer things, and moreover allows you choices: If you have a magical weapon, you can do magical BPS or Force).


Grappling got nerfed for Monks specifically. No more Dex grappling in this UA.


Open Hand's level 3 feature got nerfed. The only feature that didn't allow a saving throw now allows one. Also the pushback is less unique now because of weapon masteries and such.


Open Hand's new level 6 feature might arguably be worse than the original, and the original wasn't good. For example at level 6 with 16 Wis it'll heal ~22.5 hp over the course of an entire adventuring day for 3 ki, whereas the old version would heal 18 hp for 0 ki. Sure, it's a bonus action now, but it eats ki now. Meh.


Martial arts die increased, but can no longer be used for weapons, and unarmed strikes have no weapon masteries. Uh oh.


KFA is gone (and the new thing they get instead is weaker).


Focused Aim is gone.


Sharpshooter synergy is gone.


The best subclass lost its best tools, affecting the power ceiling of the whole class.


Using martial weapons is gone, which means gunks are gone. And whip monks and dwarf axe monks and elf longsword monks and so forth are all gone.


Monks likely have fewer good magic item options than before because of newly added compatibility issues.


Deflect Missiles got nerfed until 13th level, at which point it's buffed. Monk defensive features in general are even more backloaded than before (the earlier ones generally got nerfed, the later ones generally got buffed).


Evasion got slightly nerfed (even if it is a change I agree with).


Poison damage immunity was a good feature, and was completely removed with no replacement. Poison is one of the most common monster damage types in the game (possibly the most common after BPS), and savvy Monk players could have fun by switching into a sort of aggressive tanking role in favorable matchups -- a change of pace instead of playing every fight the same way. It also did a lot to help mitigate their poor Con saves (since a lot of con saves are against poison). I'd also seen it used for utility and story purposes, and also for interesting teamwork combos (like dropping poison spells directly on your monk).


Poison status immunity removed, replaced with the ability to remove the condition as a precious bonus action. Stillness of Mind got buffed to a bonus action but this is significantly less impactful for Monks than the poison change (they could play around fear anyways, and the charms that are worth using action economy to get rid of frequently prevent you from using bonus actions anyways).


Base Monk kit's per-turn offense looks like it might scale even less in tier 3+ than before, because spending more ki on Stunning Strike or Focused Aim isn't a thing anymore. Even things like Quivering Palm got nerfbatted (this is a tier 4 thing that takes setup and 3 ki then an action targeting a single creature with a Con save, and it only does Disintegrate-ish damage on a success).


The new capstone is kind of boring and comes right after you just got Superior Defense. Is generic tankiness ki discipline options really what they need more of right after Superior Defense? Also it's at level 20, the sort of things that are really good at bursting characters down might just bypass this feature anyway.


Perfect Discipline, while not a weak feature, is annoying design. Look forward to Monks wasting ki doing nothing out of combat just to make sure it recharges to 4 when the next fight starts, or people starting tiresome discussions about whether they can start initiative so they can heal their friend.


Stunning Strike is not only once per turn, but also now ends a turn earlier, reducing your ability to combo with yourself. It's significantly less useful for melee characters... but if I'm reading this correctly does appear to work on ranged attacks now, so that's something to look forward to. It's now far less committal (which also means you have to think less about when and whether to use it... which I don't personally take as a positive thing).

Anyways, the old Stunning Strike was pretty much the main excuse for ever heading into melee as a Monk -- it was definitely an interesting addition to a ranged Monk's decision tree to decide whether they'd go all in on a high value target (usually something like a Mind Flayer Arcanist or other dangerous enemies that lack Legendary Resistance) or hang back and use their ki on other things.

As it is now... well, it's no longer a strategic choice to go all in for your big glory kill moment against a high value target, it's instead an unreliable hail mary for moderate reward, and moreover you just hang back and use your ranged weapon for it.


Some of the 2024 PHB classes got their Tasha's optional features rolled into the base kit. Monks, who arguably had the most important changes in Tasha's (like, enough that it was actually bumping them up to lower-mid-tier on some optimizer sites! Wow!), lost their changes, and concepts like Monk Weapons don't exist anymore so you can't just add those features back on either.


Many of the Monk's old design issues look like they're still present.

For instance, one of the issues with Monk is that their defensive features are backloaded, while their offensive ones are frontloaded.

WotC actually nerfed their lower level defensive features and added more higher level ones like Energy Deflection and Defy Death and Superior Defense as a bonus action now.

As for later level offensive scaling, WotC got rid of Monks being able to use Focused Aim and Stunning Strikes more aggressively with more ki, and Empty Body (renamed Superior Defense) is now purely defensive and takes a bonus action (whereas before it gave you Advantage on all your attacks for a whole combat unless enemies could see through invisibility). Heck, they even beat Quivering Palm with a nerf bat.

2024 D&D Monks are still the most MAD class in the game, not just because of the number of attributes they want, but also how much they scale based on said attributes. This means that they lose more for not boosting an attribute than a Paladin or Ranger would, and thus are less free to select feats instead of stat bumps, narrowing their build options further in practice.

The Monk's various little quality of life issues are largely still there, such as the mildly annoying timing issue of Flurry of Blows needing to happen immediately after the attack action.

They also seem to be considerably reducing their non-combat utility and breadth of options when it should be the other way around.


Superior Defense is now a bonus action rather than an Action, and it costs 1 less ki! But this may not be quite as good a deal as it might seem at first blush. With the old version you would also get greater invisibility, and could still make an (advantaged) magic weapon attack with KFA, and attach Stunning Strike to it, or use any of the Monk's many other bonus action options. If this ported over to 1D&D they could also benefit from Weapon Masteries on that KFA bonus action. And Astral Projection just vanished entirely with no replacement (again with us losing utility features on martials).


Shadow Monks (previously the best designed Monk in the PHB and -- alongside Mercy -- the standard that other Monk subclasses should have been looking to in their design) lost KFA Silence and PWT and the ability to give their entire party Darkvision effectively forever, changing them from versatile ninja strike team leaders who enable a variety of stealthy gameplans for the whole party to participate in into... a one-trick Devil's Sight / Darkness character, as if the game needed more of those.


Old Shadow Monks could already be built to see through Darkness if they wanted, but now this is basically their entire gimmick, especially since casting Darkness is only 1 ki for them now -- too cheap not to use. They're now something you put in a Darkness party and that's basically their whole identity. Why did they decide martials needed even less utility options?


Also, since Darkness is basically their whole gimmick now, it also leaves them more vulnerable to counterplay and bad matchups (both for allies and enemies) than previously.


Shadow Monks also lost their ability to turn invisible at-will at 11th level. This ability was mostly useful out of combat, yes... but it's just continuing with the theme of WotC deleting utility options from martials in 2024, and this was an actually good utility option.


The new level 11 feature could have just been written in as scaling for the level 6 feature, not replace the level 11 feature.


Various utility or flavor features like Astral Projection, perma-Tongues, and timeless body were removed entirely. Did they get new utility or flavor features elsewhere? Nope! Fewer utility features overall, and less flavor overall. They even gave otherwise-unchanged features more generic names.


Warrior of the Elements is dramatically simplified a la Sun Soul. Again I'm a little annoyed by the narrowness of choices in the new Monk, but are the new choices at least good? Well, let's take a look. Reach and knockback on unarmed strikes is solid (although it feels a bit too samey to the Open Hand). The new AoE's ki cost is cheap, but the damage is quite low (lower than the old 4E Monk or even the Sun Soul's), and can't do KFA (just an unarmed strike). The new Elementalism cantrip does virtually nothing (whereas stuff like Control Flames, Shape Water, and Mold Earth are cool -- why aren't we giving stuff like that to the Elements Monk?). Stride of Elements offers excellent mobility (that, at least, is something the 1D&D Monk hasn't been lacking). Elemental Epitome is just a modest damage boost (and even then you can't burst like even the old 4E Monk could); the Resistance isn't a huge deal since that's about when you're getting Superior Defense and such.


Step of the Wind Disengage got buffed so that you move twice as fast and avoid OAs at the same time. Personally I find this a little overkill for most purposes but hey, at least it's an actual buff. Open Hand gets to use this ki-free at level 11, so they can be positively zippy. However, their main concern is pretty much what it was before: how useful they are to their teammates when they get to wherever they're running.


Ki now takes 3 times longer to say and 5 times longer to write. :smalltongue:


I haven't gone through 100% of all of the playtest documents yet so there may be some synergy (or anti-synergy) with something outside the class that changes the above.

[Oramac]

Are we looking at different math?

I would venture to guess that we are. Somehow, some way, their internal calculations are significantly different than ours. (EDIT: or, more accurately, their interpretations of the math and design goals are significantly different) I plan to put this in my feedback in several places.

In any case, my thoughts.


Bard
-BI die expended upon being rolled is awkward, especially since it lasts an hour and Font of Inspiration restores them on a SR.
-Yay Bards get vicious mockery on their spell list no matter what!
-Prepared spells: No longer tied to spell slots: yay! But It’s just known spells with a more confusing name. Boo!
- Magical Secrets: So you limit their spell lists only to remove the limit later? What’s the point of the limit, then?
- Words of Creation: Hmm. Interesting. I like it.

Bard (Subclasses)
Dance
- Dazzling Footwork: Bard Bladesinger/Monk, but without the blade. I like it. It definitely make the Monk obsolete though
- Irresistible Dance: Just say you can cast it with spell slots of the appropriate level.
Glamour
- Unbreakable Majesty: The BA conflicts with the BA of BI and Mantle, which I assume is intended. It would be cool if one of the “Majesty” features was an Action, so you could use both on the same turn.
Lore
- Peerless Skill: Should apply to saving throws too, imo. Otherwise, good.
Valor
- Extra Attack: Allow use of a cantrip in place of an attack, a la Bladesinger

Cleric
- Channel Divinity: Should gain the 4th use much sooner than 18th level. Also, why is Divine Spark’s damage increase at 7/13/18 instead of 5/11/17?
- Smite Undead: Change the name away from “smite”, as that is a paladin thing. Otherwise, this is good.
- Blessed Strikes: Divine Strike: Just say “hit with a weapon attack”. Also, as written this works with ranged weapons. While I oppose ranged smite for paladin, I believe this is good for the Cleric.
- Divine Intervention: More reliable, but also far more boring and less thematic.
- Greater DI: Again, awesome, but boring and less thematic.

Cleric (Subclasses)
General: features at 3rd, 6th, and 17th level??? There’s gotta be something in the middle there; around 11th or 12th level.
Life
- The verbiage “cure many hurts” may be technically acceptable, but it just sounds dumb. I would say “cure many wounds” instead.
- Domain Spells: 4 spells at 3rd level? Seems like a lot
- Preserve Life: Kinda wonky, but functionally good.
Light
- Radiance of Dawn: By RAW, even a 9th level darkness spell would be dispelled. Intended???
Trickery
- Much better overall.
War
Excellent.

Druid
- Druidic: Stop it with the prepared spells. Just say “you are always under the effects of” and be done with it.
- Primal Order: Neat
- Wild Companion: Neat; how does the familiar interact with Wild Shape?
- Wild Shape: Good. Perhaps add a “Suggested Forms” column to the Beast Shapes table
- Wild Resurgence: Good.
- Archdruid: Boo. The Onion Druid is no more. Overall, this is ok. I still question if it’s strong enough to be a 20th level capstone though.

Druid (Subclasses)
Land: Seems all right. Not amazing, but not bad either.
- Circle Spells: Why does Arid land get fire based spells, but Blue Dragons living in deserts are lightning based?
Moon
- General: Always wondered, why is this the circle of the moon? Shouldn’t it be the Circle of the Beast or something? Moon should be focused on lycanthropy.
- Combat Wild Shape: THP: just give them THP equal to the beast’s HP. Drop the “whichever is lower” thing. It is needlessly complicated.
- Imp Circle Forms: Why radiant damage? That’s not Primal. It doesn’t make sense. Just state the attacks are magical.
- Moonlight Step: Good, but can you use it while Wild Shaped?
Sea
- Circle Spells: 5 spells for free at 3rd level? Too many.
- Aquatic Affinity: Again, stop it with the prepared spells. Just say “you are always under the effects of” and be done with it.
- Oceanic Gift: This should affect you and the second creature natively.
Stars
- Yay!! I love the Stars druid!! Woot woot!

Monk
- Weapon Mastery: Cool, but there are no Unarmed weapon masteries. What’s the point of an Open Hand monk with an entire feature that’s useless? I would suggest improving the grapple/shove part of Unarmed Strikes for a Monk’s Mastery.
- Stunning Strike: Remove the once per turn limit. Same as with Smite; this is needless nerfing of the class.
- Empowered Strikes: Seriously, if magical damage resistance is being removed, TELL US! Otherwise just keep the 2014 version.
- Design Note: Disease: Umm, what? Has anyone at WOTC read the Dungeon Master’s Guide? There’s an entire section on Disease and its application. There’s even three fully written diseases. Paladin & Monk should remain immune to disease.
- Defy Death: Now this is more like it! It’s still underpowered for a capstone, imo. But only because it’s only triggered upon dropping to 0 hit points. There should be an active component as well.

Monk (Subclasses)
- General: It’s annoying that you keep giving everybody and their brother spells for features (as in the Warrior of Shadow and Warrior of the Elements)
Warrior of the Elements
- Elemental Attunement: The cantrip is just prestidigitation with different options written out. Meh. The second part is nice, though. I like the added reach.
- Env Burst: I’d state that you are immune to the damage. Otherwise being able to make an unarmed strike with it is kinda useless.
- Stride of the Elements: Meh. It’s ok.
- Elemental Epitome: Resistance is good, but Stride & Strikes are useless, for two reasons. First, you already have the fastest speed in the game, so another 20 feet is superfluous. Second, you took the damage resistance because of whatever you’re fighting, which is almost certainly resistant/immune to that damage. So there’s no real use case for this feature.
Warrior of the Hand
- Again, what good is Weapon Mastery on a Monk that doesn’t use weapons?
- Fleet Step: Neat, but weak for 11th level, especially since it’s exclusive with Flurry. This should be “in addition to Flurry” or bundled into 6th level.

Paladin
- Lay on Hands: Bonus Action is good.
- Spellcasting: Removal of cantrips is a mistake, even with Weapon Mastery. Also, stop calling it prepared spells when it’s spells known! Not to mention, paladin’s should be a pure prepared caster; none of this “replace one spell per long rest” BS.
- Paladin’s Smite: Stop trying to fix what isn’t broken! The 2014 Divine Smite is fine as-is.
- Channel Divinity: Why doesn’t this max out at 4 uses like the Cleric/Druid? Is the Paladin no longer in the Priest class group? What gives?
- Radiant Strikes: Perfect. Adding unarmed is cool and thematic, as is removing ranged.

Paladin (Subclasses)
- General: Oath Spells: Druids get 5 spells, but Paladins only get two? What gives? (Or doesn’t give, in this case)
Devotion
- Smite of Protection: This still makes no sense. I see what it’s trying to do, and I like it, but it just feels awkward.
- Holy Nimbus: The feature is good. The wording for using it again isn’t. Just say you can’t use it again unless you expend a 5th level spell slot. This worked in previous books, why not now?
Glory
- Inspiring Smite: It’s not Inspiring. It’s just THP. Not even all that much, either. This will most likely never be given to more than one (maybe two) characters.
- Peerless Athlete: So a bonus action and Channel Divinity use for what is essentially a watered down Rage? No thank you.
- Aura of Alacrity: Extremely situational. To the point of being nearly useless, especially for a Monk or Barbarian ally. This needs more.
- Living Legend: Very weak for a capstone
---- Charismatic: Lasts one minute. How many negotiations in which you would want to use this last only one minute? I’m guessing none.
---- Saving Throw Reroll: Requires your reaction? Why?
---- Unerring Strike: Ok. Not bad.
Ancients
- Nature’s Wrath: Probably still needs a range boost. Or to be targetable at a point within X range (probably 60 ft).
- Aura of Warding: Again, it ain’t broke. Stop trying to fix it. The 2014 version was fine.
- Undying Sentinel: Good change.
- Elder Champion: Swift Spells: forces exclusivity with all forms of Smite, since that is now a bonus action spell for some stupid reason.
Vengeance
- Soul of Vengeance: Bad, because of exclusivity with Relentless Avenger. Both use a reaction, but SoV is not an Opportunity Attack, meaning you can’t use it with Relentless Avenger. I would change SoV to specify you can make an Opportunity Attack if the creature is within your range.
- Avenging Angel: Why nerf the fly speed? This was already underpowered as a capstone; it’s even more so now. Also, verbiage as with Holy Nimbus

Ranger
- Deft Explorer: Very flavorful. Why only one Expertise though? The Ranger skills list is thematic and them being experts in those skills fits well.
- Spellcasting: Same as paladin.
- Favored Enemy/Design Notes: Clearly y’all have a different opinion of what constitutes “overpowered”. It would be cool to get some insight into this, as the removal of concentration from hunter’s mark was definitely not overpowered in my experience.
- Conjure X: Meh. The spells are good, but again, “spells as class features” is just boring and lazy.
- Tireless: Good. Having no limit on Decrease Exhaustion might be on the powerful side.
- Nature’s Veil: Very good. It doesn’t end upon attacking or forcing a save, so it’s borderline OP.
- Foe Slayer: Garbage. I’m going to take this instead of a Fighter multiclass? I think not. Capstones NEED TO BE OVERPOWERED. They should reward me for playing one class all the way to 20th level. This doesn’t do that.

Ranger (Subclasses)
Beast Master
- Primal Companion: The beast uses your spell attack modifier to hit? So it will always be inferior? Why? Change this to your weapon attack bonus to hit. Otherwise, this is good.
- Exceptional Training: This should specify that you’re using the beast’s bonus action too. Also, what’s with the force damage thing? Again, if magic damage resistance to going away, tell us! Otherwise just make the attacks magical.
- Share Spells: Good. It has some interesting synergy with spells like the new conjure barrage, which I like.
Gloom Stalker
- Gloom Stalker Magic: Why does only the gloom stalker get extra spells? But three-fifths are non-combat, so I suppose it’s ok.
- Dread Ambusher: The damage of Frighten should scale. Otherwise, this is good.
Hunter
- Hunter’s Lore: Potentially OP. That’s a LOT of really good information to gain.
- Defensive Tactics: Good, but it would be nice to see options that don’t use your Reaction. Between Hunter’s Prey: Retaliator and DT:Leap/Dodge, there’s probably too many things fighting to use your single reaction. Perhaps a feature to give you two reactions per round, wisdom mod per long rest?

Rogue
- Proficiencies: You get all simple weapons, and only finesse martial weapons? Is this intended?
- Steady Aim: Glad to see this here.
- Cunning Strike: Great! Honestly, this feels more like what Weapon Mastery should have been, but regardless, it’s nice to see more options.
- Imp Cunning Strike: Neat, but uninspired. Still, it’s definitely useful.
- Devious Strikes: Still feels like this should have been the Mastery features, but either way, this is good.
- Stroke of Luck: I always thought this should specify if turning the roll into a 20 can replicate the effects of a critical hit.

Rogue (Subclasses)
Arcane Trickster
- Spellcasting: Cool. But why do rogues get cantrips yet paladin and ranger don’t?
Assassin
- Assassinate: Surprising Strikes: Leave in the auto-crit. It’s fun and thematic, and not OP in the slightest. Maybe say “the first time you hit with Sneak Attack during that round, the attack is an automatic critical hit”.
- Envenom: Good, but feels kinda weak. Perhaps change all Sneak Attack damage to poison damage? Ignoring resistance is definitely needed.
- Death Strike: Good. Would be better if Assassinate were still auto-crit.
Swashbuckler
- Panache: Awe: 3d6 seems like an awfully high cost for this. I’d drop it to 2d6 and swap places with Parrying Stance.
- Dashing Strikes: Parrying Stance: Costs 2d6 but you only roll 1d6? This should change places with Awe and only cost 1d6.
Thief
- Fast Hands: Why does the Magic Action exist? This needs to be in your design notes.
- Supreme Sneak: This is too specific. It should just be “If you have the Invisible condition”.

Spells
- Divine Smite: NO!! This is flat out worse than 2014 Divine Smite.
---- It requires a Bonus Action and a Verbal component, neither of which are required in the 2014 version.
---- Also, as a spell (and a bonus action), you cannot use it twice on a turn.
---- The damage is, at best, equal to Banishing Smite, meaning it’s almost never worth using this with a 5th level spell slot. The 2014 version capped at 5d8 and 4th level slots, leaving 5th level slots open for other spells.
---- Again, the 2014 Divine Smite IS NOT BROKEN. I cannot stress this enough. DO NOT CHANGE DIVINE SMITE!
- Banishing Smite: I’m not wasting a 5th level spell slot to banish a creature that’s only got 50 hit points left. I’m just going to kill it.
- Conjure Barrage: If this is a Ranger-exclusive spell, make it a 1st level spell that does 3d8 damage. Then the scaling remains the same but I can have fun with it sooner.
- Conjure Volley: Same as Conjure Barrage. Make this a 3rd level spell with appropriate damage so I can have fun with it sooner.
- Elementalism: It’s just Prestidigitation with elemental themed options. Meh.
- Find Steed: Again, since it’s paladin specific, it should be buffed. Max AC of 15 and 55 hit points? It’s going to die in round one. Its attack uses my spell attack modifier? At best, a secondary ability score. And all the Bonus Actions should recharge on a Short or Long Rest.
- Hunter’s Mark: Please explain the math behind the silly once per turn limit! Better yet, just remove the limit. Otherwise, this is all right.
- Searing Smite: At the start of its turn, it takes the damage THEN makes the save. I like it
- Shining Smite: It’s actually useful now!
- Staggering Smite: Again, excellent.
- Vicious Mockery: The most fun spell in the game. I love insulting monsters to death!
- Wrathful Smite: Nope. Leave the ongoing effect as a wisdom CHECK, not save. Otherwise, ok.

[finley]

Poison damage immunity was a good feature, and was completely removed with no replacement.


This is the most fascinating thing to me, because there's a whole design note about why they removed immunity to disease, but nothing on why they removed immunity to poison damage. I wonder if the designers somehow didn't realize "immunity to poison" meant "immunity to poison damage AND the poisoned condition"? Seems like a very strange oversight, but I'm genuinely wondering if that's the best explanation.




I haven't gone through 100% of all of the playtest documents yet so there may be some synergy (or anti-synergy) with something outside the class that changes the above.


Good lord there is. The new feats from the Experts playtest actually looked like they would benefit monks, as you could build competitive weapon damage builds with weapons outside of the Halberd and Hand Crossbow. The only problem is that every single one of these new feats has a single prerequisite, which is proficiency in any Martial weapon. Monks, having lost shortswords, are actually not eligible for any of these feats. In 5E, at least a monk could grab Sharpshooter or Polearm Master and get halfway to a decent feat build. In the current playtest, the only "Martial" type feats they can access, without gaining martial weapon proficiencies from a subclass dip or racial selection, are Grappler, Speedster, Skulker and Defensive Duelist. Straight-class monks have actually fallen even further down the damage ladder than they were in 5E.

They can't even get Fighting Style feats, since for some reason WotC changed the prerequisites from membership in the Warrior group(of which Monk was a part) to having the Fighting Style feature in your base class. A Monk can't even take Dual Wielder!

EDIT:I just checked the original Species UA, and none of the 5.5 species options actually give any weapon proficiencies. So, as far as we can tell, the only way for Monk to access any damage-related feats is a 1 level dip into another martial class. Or.....Cleric or Druid, now, I guess.

[Khosan]

It's entirely mechanically-driven. Bards use Cha, so a monk-themed bard gets Cha to AC, otherwise they'd be too MAD to play. As for an in-world explanation, yeah, there's nothing. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I would interpret it as incorporating dance into their fighting style, moving in artful but unpredictable ways that ultimately make them harder to hit. Like how drunken boxing mimics the movements of a drunk person, but it's capoeira/dance fighting.

[Oramac]

I wonder if the designers somehow didn't realize "immunity to poison" meant "immunity to poison damage AND the poisoned condition"?

I think at this point we can safely say that the current designers don't really understand their own game. Which is really sad. They have more resources than any of us plebs combined, yet they keep making dumb decisions and touting it as "improvement".

[LudicSavant]

Here's my very early first impressions for Monks and all of their subclasses:


Heightened Metabolism is a straight up buff to the Monk's resource longevity. Neat! The most positive thing here. The main question after that is just how much they're getting done per turn.


The Monk's fists doing Force damage rather than Magical BPS is a slight improvement (at least in 2014 5e it's resisted by fewer things, and moreover allows you choices: If you have a magical weapon, you can do magical BPS or Force).


Grappling got nerfed for Monks specifically. No more Dex grappling in this UA.


Open Hand's level 3 feature got nerfed. The only feature that didn't allow a saving throw now allows one. Also the pushback is less unique now because of weapon masteries and such.


Open Hand's new level 6 feature might arguably be worse than the original, and the original wasn't good. For example at level 6 with 16 Wis it'll heal ~22.5 hp over the course of an entire adventuring day for 3 ki, whereas the old version would heal 18 hp for 0 ki. Sure, it's a bonus action now, but it eats ki now. Meh.


Martial arts die increased, but can no longer be used for weapons, and unarmed strikes have no weapon masteries. Uh oh.


KFA is gone (and the new thing they get instead is weaker).


Focused Aim is gone.


Sharpshooter synergy is gone.


The best subclass lost its best tools, affecting the power ceiling of the whole class.


Using martial weapons is gone, which means gunks are gone. And whip monks and dwarf axe monks and elf longsword monks and so forth are all gone.


Monks likely have fewer good magic item options than before because of newly added compatibility issues.


Deflect Missiles got nerfed until 13th level, at which point it's buffed. Monk defensive features in general are even more backloaded than before (the earlier ones generally got nerfed, the later ones generally got buffed).


Evasion got slightly nerfed (even if it is a change I agree with).


Poison damage immunity was a good feature, and was completely removed with no replacement. Poison is one of the most common monster damage types in the game (possibly the most common after BPS), and savvy Monk players could have fun by switching into a sort of aggressive tanking role in favorable matchups -- a change of pace instead of playing every fight the same way. It also did a lot to help mitigate their poor Con saves (since a lot of con saves are against poison). I'd also seen it used for utility and story purposes, and also for interesting teamwork combos (like dropping poison spells directly on your monk).


Poison status immunity removed, replaced with the ability to remove the condition as a precious bonus action. Stillness of Mind got buffed to a bonus action but this is significantly less impactful for Monks than the poison change (they could play around fear anyways, and the charms that are worth using action economy to get rid of frequently prevent you from using bonus actions anyways).


Base Monk kit's per-turn offense looks like it might scale even less in tier 3+ than before, because spending more ki on Stunning Strike or Focused Aim isn't a thing anymore. Even things like Quivering Palm got nerfbatted (this is a tier 4 thing that takes setup and 3 ki then an action targeting a single creature with a Con save, and it only does Disintegrate-ish damage on a success).


The new capstone is kind of boring and comes right after you just got Superior Defense. Is generic tankiness ki discipline options really what they need more of right after Superior Defense? Also it's at level 20, the sort of things that are really good at bursting characters down might just bypass this feature anyway.


Perfect Discipline, while not a weak feature, is annoying design. Look forward to Monks wasting ki doing nothing out of combat just to make sure it recharges to 4 when the next fight starts, or people starting tiresome discussions about whether they can start initiative so they can heal their friend.


Stunning Strike is not only once per turn, but also now ends a turn earlier, reducing your ability to combo with yourself. It's significantly less useful for melee characters... but if I'm reading this correctly does appear to work on ranged attacks now, so that's something to look forward to. It's now far less committal (which also means you have to think less about when and whether to use it... which I don't personally take as a positive thing).

Anyways, the old Stunning Strike was pretty much the main excuse for ever heading into melee as a Monk -- it was definitely an interesting addition to a ranged Monk's decision tree to decide whether they'd go all in on a high value target (usually something like a Mind Flayer Arcanist or other dangerous enemies that lack Legendary Resistance) or hang back and use their ki on other things.

As it is now... well, it's no longer a strategic choice to go all in for your big glory kill moment against a high value target, it's instead an unreliable hail mary for moderate reward, and moreover you just hang back and use your ranged weapon for it.


Some of the 2024 PHB classes got their Tasha's optional features rolled into the base kit. Monks, who arguably had the most important changes in Tasha's (like, enough that it was actually bumping them up to lower-mid-tier on some optimizer sites! Wow!), lost their changes, and concepts like Monk Weapons don't exist anymore so you can't just add those features back on either.


Many of the Monk's old design issues look like they're still present.

For instance, one of the issues with Monk is that their defensive features are backloaded, while their offensive ones are frontloaded.

WotC actually nerfed their lower level defensive features and added more higher level ones like Energy Deflection and Defy Death and Superior Defense as a bonus action now.

As for later level offensive scaling, WotC got rid of Monks being able to use Focused Aim and Stunning Strikes more aggressively with more ki, and Empty Body (renamed Superior Defense) is now purely defensive and takes a bonus action (whereas before it gave you Advantage on all your attacks for a whole combat unless enemies could see through invisibility). Heck, they even beat Quivering Palm with a nerf bat.

2024 D&D Monks are still the most MAD class in the game, not just because of the number of attributes they want, but also how much they scale based on said attributes. This means that they lose more for not boosting an attribute than a Paladin or Ranger would, and thus are less free to select feats instead of stat bumps, narrowing their build options further in practice.

The Monk's various little quality of life issues are largely still there, such as the mildly annoying timing issue of Flurry of Blows needing to happen immediately after the attack action.

They also seem to be considerably reducing their non-combat utility and breadth of options when it should be the other way around.


Superior Defense is now a bonus action rather than an Action, and it costs 1 less ki! But this may not be quite as good a deal as it might seem at first blush. With the old version you would also get greater invisibility, and could still make an (advantaged) magic weapon attack with KFA, and attach Stunning Strike to it, or use any of the Monk's many other bonus action options. If this ported over to 1D&D they could also benefit from Weapon Masteries on that KFA bonus action. And Astral Projection just vanished entirely with no replacement (again with us losing utility features on martials).


Shadow Monks (previously the best designed Monk in the PHB and -- alongside Mercy -- the standard that other Monk subclasses should have been looking to in their design) lost KFA Silence and PWT and the ability to give their entire party Darkvision effectively forever, changing them from versatile ninja strike team leaders who enable a variety of stealthy gameplans for the whole party to participate in into... a one-trick Devil's Sight / Darkness character, as if the game needed more of those.


Old Shadow Monks could already be built to see through Darkness if they wanted, but now this is basically their entire gimmick, especially since casting Darkness is only 1 ki for them now -- too cheap not to use. They're now something you put in a Darkness party and that's basically their whole identity. Why did they decide martials needed even less utility options?


Also, since Darkness is basically their whole gimmick now, it also leaves them more vulnerable to counterplay and bad matchups (both for allies and enemies) than previously.


Shadow Monks also lost their ability to turn invisible at-will at 11th level. This ability was mostly useful out of combat, yes... but it's just continuing with the theme of WotC deleting utility options from martials in 2024, and this was an actually good utility option.


The new level 11 feature could have just been written in as scaling for the level 6 feature, not replace the level 11 feature.


Various utility or flavor features like Astral Projection, perma-Tongues, and timeless body were removed entirely. Did they get new utility or flavor features elsewhere? Nope! Fewer utility features overall, and less flavor overall. They even gave otherwise-unchanged features more generic names.


Warrior of the Elements is dramatically simplified a la Sun Soul. Again I'm a little annoyed by the narrowness of choices in the new Monk, but are the new choices at least good? Well, let's take a look. Reach and knockback on unarmed strikes is solid (although it feels a bit too samey to the Open Hand). The new AoE's ki cost is cheap, but the damage is quite low (lower than the old 4E Monk or even the Sun Soul's), and can't do KFA (just an unarmed strike). The new Elementalism cantrip does virtually nothing (whereas stuff like Control Flames, Shape Water, and Mold Earth are cool -- why aren't we giving stuff like that to the Elements Monk?). Stride of Elements offers excellent mobility (that, at least, is something the 1D&D Monk hasn't been lacking). Elemental Epitome is just a modest damage boost (and even then you can't burst like even the old 4E Monk could); the Resistance isn't a huge deal since that's about when you're getting Superior Defense and such.


Step of the Wind Disengage got buffed so that you move twice as fast and avoid OAs at the same time. Personally I find this a little overkill for most purposes but hey, at least it's an actual buff. Open Hand gets to use this ki-free at level 11, so they can be positively zippy. However, their main concern is pretty much what it was before: how useful they are to their teammates when they get to wherever they're running.


Ki now takes 3 times longer to say and 5 times longer to write. :smalltongue:


I haven't gone through 100% of all of the playtest documents yet so there may be some synergy (or anti-synergy) with something outside the class that changes the above.


Meanwhile, WotC is letting Clerics cast Hallow as an Action 1/day at 10th level. Without a spell slot or components or anything.

It's like they looked at Chronurgists and were like "Yeah, that's definitely too balanced."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Meanwhile, WotC is letting Clerics cast Hallow as an Action 1/day at 10th level. Without a spell slot or components or anything.

It's like they looked at Chronurgists and were like "Yeah, that's definitely too balanced."

Spells can do anything, no balance issues there. But punching people? That has to be carefully balanced. /Sarcasm

[Psyren]

First round of Rogue was lame and undertuned too. I have faith that they'll come around on Monk after we review bomb the hell out of it :smallsmile:

[Aimeryan]

First round of Rogue was lame and undertuned too. I have faith that they'll come around on Monk after we review bomb the hell out of it :smallsmile:

It may be an anchoring tactic so people are happy with whatever comes next without WotC having to do as much work fixing them.

[Psyren]

It may be an anchoring tactic so people are happy with whatever comes next without WotC having to do as much work fixing them.

Given that they swung big with rogue anyway I don't put much stock in that. Literally people would have been happy just with off-turn sneak attack and Steady Aim restored, maybe with a few Weapon Mastery options too - and not only did they do all three of those things, they straight up gave them maneuvers.

[Boverk]

Question about weapon masteries, specifically the Nick property that makes it so you don't need the extra attack from dual wielding.

Let's say I have a level 5 fighter wielding a shortsword(Vex) and a dagger(Nick). I get two attacks and an extra attack because I'm dual wielding.

Do I have to make one of the base attacks with the Nick weapon? or just the attack gained by Dual wielding?.

i.e. can I do

Case 1: Attack 1 Shortsword, Attack 2 Shortsword, Attack 3 (from dual wielding) Dagger

or do I have to do

Case 2: Attack 1 Shortsword, Attack 2 Dagger, Attack 3 (from dual wielding) Dagger

or even

Case 3: Attack 1 Unarmed attack to shove prone (boot to the chest), Attack 2 Shortsword, Attack 3 (from dual wielding) Dagger

I know Case 2 is fine, but are Cases 1 and 3 legal?

[Mongobear]

Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

I think the entire concept and execution is unhealthy for the base ruleset.

I would be fine if these sorts of abilities/traits were tied to a series of subclasses for each of the classes gaining access to them, but just lumping it into the base game for anyone to use feels wrong and I will be personally ignoring any mention of them in the future, and creating my own hybrid rule set of the better parts of 5e and 1DND.

It amazes me how much progress WotC can show in one area of development while also showing regression in others when it comes to an update to a base rule set like this. It's almost like none of their Devs play their own game, and all these surveys are used as ideas for what not to do.

[LudicSavant]

Am I the only one that dislikes weapon masteries. Not just the implementation but the concept. A large part of d&d is about finding magic weapons. Finding a magical weapon that doesn’t align with your chosen masteries just feels bad. Of course the dm can cater magic weapons to the PC masteries but that doesn’t feel great either IMO.

I think the entire concept and execution is unhealthy for the base ruleset.

You're not the only one. Weapon Masteries as currently implemented put every martial into the 'you use this specific weapon, not other weapons' category. Sure, you can change the mastery at the end of a long rest (grumbles about this being yet another effect rather oddly disconnected from any particular narrative explanation...), but on any given day you're basically using two weapons, rather than a wider variety.

On a wider level, a lot of 1D&D rules changes seem to be unconcerned with or even erode 'versatility in play' (e.g. the decision space you have in moment to moment gameplay decisions, as opposed to 'versatility in build,' the breadth of different kinds of characters you can make. On some level, the 'change on a long rest' thing is just switching yourself to a different build tomorrow, it doesn't much affect your decision space in handing a given challenge in moment to moment gameplay). Just look at a lot of the Monk changes -- you're actually less encouraged to adapt your gameplan to your current situation. Their tools on the whole (including for subclass abilities, too) are narrower, and have clearer 'best' options to just default to in most situations.

One of the reasons Cunning Strike is refreshing is precisely because it's actually more interesting moment-to-moment gameplay decisions, more versatility in play. It's a shame that so much of 1D&D's design seems to be trying to accomplish the opposite of what Cunning Strike does.

[MoiMagnus]

(grumbles about this being yet another effect rather oddly disconnected from any particular narrative explanation...)

A lot of those "weird long rest effects" could be linked to a "morning routine" necessary to maintain your skills (martial training against a target dummy, studying your wizard's book, praying to your god, etc).
I'm not sure if that should be an actual rule in the PHB or in a DMG chapter on how to "justify" all the abstract rules, but it would be better if at least suggestion of narrative explanations were provided somewhere (and by that, I don't just mean a single sentence, I mean a class-by-class explanation).

[Snowbluff]

Given that they swung big with rogue anyway I don't put much stock in that. Literally people would have been happy just with off-turn sneak attack and Steady Aim restored, maybe with a few Weapon Mastery options too - and not only did they do all three of those things, they straight up gave them maneuvers.

It is pretty rad. An Arcane Trickster Rogue is gonna be so versatile now, and it's already one of my favorites. I'm not even sure how Marianne the Kobold Rogue Paladin would want her level split now.

Also, re: the weapon masteries, I do think you should gain more as you level up. I will point out, and I could be reading this wrong, but the attack rules let you draw a weapon as part of an attack. You could do on the fly, Dark Souls style weapon swaps if you wanted to. As such, I'm not terribly concerned with weapon masteries being too rigid. Definitely there is something to be desired, in that you might want to hold onto magical off-type weapons you would normally sell, but I also think it's a large step up for weapon users.

I'm still for adding maneuver dice to all pure martials/noncasters (fighter, barb, rogue, monk) with the addition of some non-combat maneuvers, but I do feel like a lot of people who enjoy fighter would protest. Some people do like non-resource based play.

Oh, I think Hunter's Mark should be a class feature now. Maybe split the tracking part into a separate spell, but I don't think it having concentration is helping people understanding the ranger in general. It's a well kept secret that Ranger has always been good, but having its disparate elements cooperate has been the primary issue, in my eyes. A ranger's casting is quite good as a tool, and it well outstrips their non combat class features.

[Foxhound438]

Of all the rotten...

They STILL kept the beast of the sea being 5' land speed.

I DO NOT WANT MY COMPANION TO BE A BARRACUDA OR SHARK OR SOMETHING! I WANT A CROCODILE! I WANT A CRAB! IT HAS THE FEATURE, AMPHIBIOUS! COME ON MAN!!!

>:(

[LudicSavant]

Of all the rotten...

They STILL kept the beast of the sea being 5' land speed.

I DO NOT WANT MY COMPANION TO BE A BARRACUDA OR SHARK OR SOMETHING! I WANT A CROCODILE! I WANT A CRAB! IT HAS THE FEATURE, AMPHIBIOUS! COME ON MAN!!!

>:(

Preach, sister (or brother).

[Pex]

I think the entire concept and execution is unhealthy for the base ruleset.

I would be fine if these sorts of abilities/traits were tied to a series of subclasses for each of the classes gaining access to them, but just lumping it into the base game for anyone to use feels wrong and I will be personally ignoring any mention of them in the future, and creating my own hybrid rule set of the better parts of 5e and 1DND.

It amazes me how much progress WotC can show in one area of development while also showing regression in others when it comes to an update to a base rule set like this. It's almost like none of their Devs play their own game, and all these surveys are used as ideas for what not to do.

Why is this bad for you? It's a matter of opinion for some talents to be generic enough anyone can do, no specialization (subclass) needed. All fighters can use action surge and second wind. What makes weapon masteries so special not all fighters should be able to use them other than arbitrary design decision?

It would be a separate question as to why various classes should have them. To let warriors have their own thing is reason not to allow spellcasters to have them, including clerics, even if exceptions were allowed in their specific subclasses (War Domain). Any warrior can have them but only select few subclasses of others, if must, is not unreasonable.


You're not the only one. Weapon Masteries as currently implemented put every martial into the 'you use this specific weapon, not other weapons' category. Sure, you can change the mastery at the end of a long rest (grumbles about this being yet another effect rather oddly disconnected from any particular narrative explanation...), but on any given day you're basically using two weapons, rather than a wider variety.

On a wider level, a lot of 1D&D rules changes seem to be unconcerned with or even erode 'versatility in play' (e.g. the decision space you have in moment to moment gameplay decisions, as opposed to 'versatility in build,' the breadth of different kinds of characters you can make. On some level, the 'change on a long rest' thing is just switching yourself to a different build tomorrow, it doesn't much affect your decision space in handing a given challenge in moment to moment gameplay). Just look at a lot of the Monk changes -- you're actually less encouraged to adapt your gameplan to your current situation. Their tools on the whole (including for subclass abilities, too) are narrower, and have clearer 'best' options to just default to in most situations.

One of the reasons Cunning Strike is refreshing is precisely because it's actually more interesting moment-to-moment gameplay decisions, more versatility in play. It's a shame that so much of 1D&D's design seems to be trying to accomplish the opposite of what Cunning Strike does.

On a mechanical level how often are warriors changing their main weapon anyway? If the character has been using a great axe from level 1 to X, why would he change at level X + 1? A new magic weapon is one reason. Fine, he changes weapon and mastery then and is happy, but why would he change again? If he only ever has two masteries he's not hurt by it because he wouldn't be changing weapons anyway to need more masteries.

As a philosophical matter should a warrior only ever know two masteries? It comes to personal liking the idea of a PC changing weapons every combat if not every round. If a spellcaster can change his spells a warrior changing his weapons should not be offensive. If every warrior everywhere doing it is offensive, this is prime opportunity to give the ability to Fighter for his unique specialness even among warriors. Let others only ever have two and their other special thing. Fighters get to change weapons and masteries as they see fit, even if they know all of the masteries and just need to change a weapon when they feel like it, for those players who are into this and don't use the same weapon from level 1 to 20. If the philosophy is accepted it comes down to the implementation whether or not the current version is good enough.

[LudicSavant]

On a mechanical level how often are warriors changing their main weapon anyway? In systems where warriors aren't boxed into a single weapon choice, and the weapons do meaningfully different things? Potentially pretty often!

It's not unusual for iconic fantasy warriors to use more than just two weapons on a regular basis.


A new magic weapon is one reason. Fine, he changes weapon and mastery then and is happy, but why would he change again? All kinds of possible reasons. Maybe the old magic weapon is strong against undead and you're fighting them right now. Maybe they got disarmed. Maybe they're fighting a Flameskull and don't want to be using a piercing weapon right now. Maybe they're fighting an ooze and don't want to split it with slashing. Maybe the new magic weapon does fire damage and the enemy is resistant to it. Maybe a given Mastery is more effective against a given enemy type or tactical situation. And so on and so forth.


If a spellcaster can change his spells a warrior changing his weapons should not be offensive.

Agreed!

[Unoriginal]

As I commented in another thread, I just realized that the Warrior of the Elements is just the Dragon Monk from the Fizban's, but through the 5eRRoR filtrr and without any of the lessons the devs had learned about making Monk subclasses.

[Atranen]

It seems like a cleaner solution to weapon mastery is to just give the fighter all weapon masteries all the time. Then there's no retaining bit and it gives them more "versatility in play".

Would that be such a big deal? Maybe I'll adopt that rule for my games.

(A counterargument is, isn't it cool to play a warrior with exceptional skill in a single weapon? I think it is and that's a design space worth exploring. But the current weapon mastery isn't oriented towards that).

[LudicSavant]

It seems like a cleaner solution to weapon mastery is to just give the fighter all weapon masteries all the time. Then there's no retaining bit and it gives them more "versatility in play".

Would that be such a big deal? Maybe I'll adopt that rule for my games.

(A counterargument is, isn't it cool to play a warrior with exceptional skill in a single weapon? I think it is and that's a design space worth exploring. But the current weapon mastery isn't oriented towards that).

You could just give people all weapon masteries all the time.

The option to specialize in a single weapon is already covered by Fighting Styles and feats and such, there's little reason to box things in even further.

[Dienekes]

A lot of those "weird long rest effects" could be linked to a "morning routine" necessary to maintain your skills (martial training against a target dummy, studying your wizard's book, praying to your god, etc).
I'm not sure if that should be an actual rule in the PHB or in a DMG chapter on how to "justify" all the abstract rules, but it would be better if at least suggestion of narrative explanations were provided somewhere (and by that, I don't just mean a single sentence, I mean a class-by-class explanation).

I dunno man. If I do longsword warm ups in the morning, I don’t suddenly get worse at my pollaxe.

This is one of those moments where if you work for it you can find an explanation. But the game’s verisimilitude would be improved if they avoided setting up mechanics that require such justification in the first place.

And it’s not even particularly difficult to set up a very similar system to the current maneuvers that avoids this issue.

But, I kinda think this is already a very lost battle. Mechanics that don’t really make sense once you think about them has only been growing over 5es life. And often the steps away have been celebrated by many players. So I’m not seeing much incentive for WotC make more simulationist mechanics.

Would I vastly prefer if the masteries were set up that every weapon had multiple masteries designed in such a way to nudge players toward a more complex view of combat of switching weapons based on situation? Like: oh start of a combat enounter I’m going to charge. Get the lance. Oh I’m facing a heavily armored opponent time to swap to the mace. Oh no! I’m grappled, drop the weapon and pick up the dagger.

But that’s a lot of work. And will greatly alter melee combat far more than the current maneuver system.

[Amechra]

You could honestly solve a lot of the annoying little issues with Weapon Masteries by just combining them with Fighting Styles into a single upgraded weapon/armor chart for martial characters. Or, heck, just make the distinction between Simple and Martial weapons more meaningful and be stricter about who gets them.

[Kane0]

I've already just ripped the masteries I liked and turned them into fighting styles. Then you just provide a few to choose from for rogue, monk, barbarian and gishy subclasses same as the fighter, ranger and paladin. If you want variety, let the pure martials change their style at the start of their turn from a pool of styles known like the druids wildshapes. If you pick up multiple fighting style features such as from multiclassing, feats or being a champion you can have more than one style you know active at a time.

[Boverk]

I've already just ripped the masteries I liked and turned them into fighting styles. Then you just provide a few to choose from for rogue, monk, barbarian and gishy subclasses same as the fighter, ranger and paladin. If you want variety, let the pure martials change their style at the start of their turn from a pool of styles known like the druids wildshapes. If you pick up multiple fighting style features such as from multiclassing, feats or being a champion you can have more than one style you know active at a time.

The shifting between turns made me think about possibly having stances for Monk.

Give them trade offs, can switch whenever you take the attack action (or roll initiative? or spend ki, once per turn?). Put monk level requirements on them (like the stronger Rune Knight Runes) if you're worried about multi-classing shenanigans.

Sacrifice X damage (or accuracy) for Y AC? Sacrifice X accuracy (or AC) for Y damage? Sacrifice something for a better monk ability DC?

It's quite monk-y and you could even give them D&D names if you want to keep moving away from real world references for monk... "Stance of the Blue Dragon", "Stance of the Beholder", "Stance of the Displacer Beast"

[paladinn]

I've already just ripped the masteries I liked and turned them into fighting styles. Then you just provide a few to choose from for rogue, monk, barbarian and gishy subclasses same as the fighter, ranger and paladin. If you want variety, let the pure martials change their style at the start of their turn from a pool of styles known like the druids wildshapes. If you pick up multiple fighting style features such as from multiclassing, feats or being a champion you can have more than one style you know active at a time.

This, sir, is super intriguing! Can you share any more on this?

[Veldrenor]

This is likely being overly pedantic, but it seems weird to me so bringing it up. College of Dance, Agile Strikes says that it lets you make an unarmed strike when you expend a use of your Bardic Inspiration as part of an action, bonus action, or reaction. I imagine that the intention is for you to get in a free punch whenever you use Inspiring Movement or give someone a BI die, but Bardic Inspiration says "That creature gains one of your Bardic Inspiration dice," not that you expend one. The BI die isn't specifically expended until the creature uses it against a failed roll, but then does that count as you expending it or the creature expending it?

[Boverk]

This is likely being overly pedantic, but it seems weird to me so bringing it up. College of Dance, Agile Strikes says that it lets you make an unarmed strike when you expend a use of your Bardic Inspiration as part of an action, bonus action, or reaction. I imagine that the intention is for you to get in a free punch whenever you use Inspiring Movement or give someone a BI die, but Bardic Inspiration says "That creature gains one of your Bardic Inspiration dice," not that you expend one. The BI die isn't specifically expended until the creature uses it against a failed roll, but then does that count as you expending it or the creature expending it?

Now is the time to be pedantic, and this is a good callout. They seemed to intend it to work specifically for the college of dance new uses, otherwise its just all bonus action.

Do you get the additional attack whenever you give someone a bardic inspiration? or only when you personally use it?

[Kane0]

This, sir, is super intriguing! Can you share any more on this?

My current start is something along the following:

Fighting style
You learn two of the options below. At the start of each of your turns you can choose one to gain the benefits of.
If you get this feature more than once you pick another two to learn and can choose an extra one to have active at the same time.

Archery
+2 to hit with ranged weapons

Dueling
Extra 1d6 damage against creatures with no other creatures adjacent to it or yourself

Blind Fighting
10' Blindsight

Defense
+1 AC

Cleaving
Melee weapon attacks also apply to an adjacent target for half damage (one attack and damage roll)

Crippling
Hits with weapon attacks also reduce the targets speed by 10' until start of your next turn (doesnt stack with itself)

Dabbler
Learn two arcane(int), divine (wis) or primal (wis) cantrips with casting stat to damage for them if they deal damage.

Great Weapon
When using a melee weapon in two hands you can reroll 1s (once per attack) and explode max weapon dice (once per attack)

Guardian
Enemies treat your reach as difficult terrain

Harrier
Gain +5' speed, and once per turn a creature you hit with a melee attack cannot take reactions until the start of your next turn

Interception
When a creature attacks a target within your reach, reaction to reduce the damage by 1d8 (2d8 @5th, 3d8@11th, 4d8@17th)

Quickdraw
+2 to Initiative

Scathing
Melee attacks still deal minimum damage on a miss

Unarmed
Your unarmed strike deals two damage dice (its 1d4 by default), and you can grapple or shove with Opportunity Attacks

[Boverk]

This would be solid for base fighter...other classes can have access to fighting styles/weapon masteries but fighter should get the most out of them

[Kane0]

Im planning on giving fighter multiple fighting styles, basically replacing the levels they get mastery improvements in playtest packet 5

[Rukelnikov]

Take into account that dueling as written would apply to ranged weapons, and dabbler is Ago Blast in a can.

[Sulicius]

I think at this point we can safely say that the current designers don't really understand their own game. Which is really sad. They have more resources than any of us plebs combined, yet they keep making dumb decisions and touting it as "improvement".

Removing the poison damage immunity is a huge improvement. Just not for the PC.

[Kane0]

Take into account that dueling as written would apply to ranged weapons, and dabbler is Ago Blast in a can.

Yep, former is to replicate pistol duels, and latter is once per casting and EB isnt a generic arcane spell anyways.

[Rukelnikov]

Yep, former is to replicate pistol duels, and latter is once per casting and EB isnt a generic arcane spell anyways.

Yeah, but it also applies to anyone with a bow firing at a target that has no allies or enemies around. Regarding EB, yeah, I wasn't thinking about 5.5, should've realised from the lists names.

[Kane0]

Yeah, but it also applies to anyone with a bow firing at a target that has no allies or enemies around. Regarding EB, yeah, I wasn't thinking about 5.5, should've realised from the lists names.

This is true, but this is competing withe the +2 to hit from archery which is one of the better styles already

[Catullus64]

So I believe I've found a bit of contradictory text, and it's in the Fighter's 13th level feature, Weapon Adept.


You are a master of weapons. When you use your Weapon Expert feature on a kind of weapon, you can give that kind of weapon two properties rather than one, but you then use only one property at a time; whenever you make an attack roll against a target with that kind of weapon, you decide which of the two properties applies to that attack. You make this decision before the attack hits or misses.

For example, you could apply the Push and Topple properties to Longswords, and whenever you hit a target with a Longsword, you decide which of those properties to use against the target.

Either I'm crazy, or the last sentence of that first paragraph and that second paragraph are completely at odds vis-a-vis when you decide which property to use. Right?

The weird thing is, both pieces of text are specific enough that it's hard to write off either one as being just a typo.

[Snowbluff]

This is likely being overly pedantic, but it seems weird to me so bringing it up. College of Dance, Agile Strikes says that it lets you make an unarmed strike when you expend a use of your Bardic Inspiration as part of an action, bonus action, or reaction. I imagine that the intention is for you to get in a free punch whenever you use Inspiring Movement or give someone a BI die, but Bardic Inspiration says "That creature gains one of your Bardic Inspiration dice," not that you expend one. The BI die isn't specifically expended until the creature uses it against a failed roll, but then does that count as you expending it or the creature expending it?

This seems to be the case. I'll put it in my survey, it's probably intended to go off when you lose a die.

[Kish]

Either I'm crazy, or the last sentence of that first paragraph and that second paragraph are completely at odds vis-a-vis when you decide which property to use. Right?Never rule out the possibility of both.

But yes, one of those says "before you hit" and the other explicitly says you decide when you hit." I'm guessing a change in how the ability was supposed to function partway through design and sloppy editing. Something to report.

[Boverk]

2 things I hadn't noticed about Rogues:


Rogue now gets Proficiency in Wisdom AND Charisma saves at 15.
The capstone feature now uses the phrase d20 test which includes attack rolls. So they can turn a miss into an auto crit, not just a hit

[sambojin]

The Druid bit looks pretty good. Moon isn't broken any more, but is still powerful, Land has tonnes of magic, and Sea is like Spores (kinda)/ melee druid, but mechanically simpler and more useful. I'll look at them each in a positive light.

Druid base: we can always talk to animals. We have all the weapons and medium armour (or an extra cantrip and skill'y "expertise"). This includes metal armour. No swimming exclusions means you get plenty of available wildshape forms at lvl2. You get plenty of wildshape to use by lvl6 (and it works pretty well if you get lots of, or no short rests). You can do magic actions in WS, just not cast spells. The suggested forms are actually quite versatile and good, but you can change them if you want (60' speed w/carry+rideable, 40' spiderclimb+stealth+blindsight, or combat trips+pack tactics+perception covers a lot of early game stuff. Tiny stuff now has your HP 🥳). We have Find Familiar for a day, that only takes an action to do, so they can be replaced (it can help with watch duty though, they disappear at the end of a long rest). Our magic has gone back to being normal-prepared (so you can have lots of high level spells prepared for versatility). We can get more WS from spell slots, or a free lvl1 if we don't need WS (wildshape is actually a pretty flexible pool-resource now, in the PHB). We have slightly better cantrips or more WS damage. Commune with Nature is actually quite a good spell in the right setting. You get more-more WS damage or 300' cantrips. You get beast-spells. And Arch Druid is still pretty damn powerful, to incentivise you to stay mono-classed.

Moon: no swimming exclusions gives a tonne of forms to pick at lvl3 (15' restrain-on-hit from Giant Octopus for example). The tHP feels fair and balanced alongside the AC boost (yay, metal armour allowed!). Abjuration spells include Resistance (cantrip, so always +saves as a reaction), Lesser Restoration, Pass without Trace, Dispell Magic, Non Detection, Protection from Energy, Antilife Shell, as well as all the healing, so you've got a pretty big toolkit for situations even while wildshaped (Resistance is nice, and you could nab Shield, or Protection from G&E, or Shield of Faith pretty easily if you wanted. Even counterspell with a deep dip). Oh, and Moonbeam for kiting, which scales rather well, so you're not always on the front lines/ melee-only. Same'ish lvl6, but stronger AC. The extra damage at lvl7 works better for you than most. Teleports at lvl10 are nice, although I'll miss the Elemental shenanigans. Super Moonbeam and Teleport Other at lvl14 is tactically awesome, and it's hard to complain about damage output at this point.

Land: by all means "have whatever damn spell loadout you want" each day at lvl3, have *big&safe* shatter/heal as well (also works in wildshape for splatter kittens, and a 10' AoE radius is pretty big. You can target this on yourself, safely. Tiny stuff now has your HP 🥳), have a free circle spell slot *and* Natural Recovery (in case you ever run out of fireballs/ lightning bolts/ polymorphs/ cone of colds somehow, or whatever you need to do) at lvl6 which is huge+ spell slots, have poison resist and a somewhat appropriate other resist that you choose each day at 10th, give people that resist and 1/2 cover at 14th in a 15' cube (also works in wildshape), which is essentially a defensive spell, that you can move, but might do stealth as well. My Nature, that's a lot of magic. You know how you were concentration limited before? Now you're not. You have heaps of instant spells, and effects that can overlap, so you're not "just a controller" any more. You're a damn fine nature mage. And probably even better than the 5e version, which wasn't bad either.

Sea: I haven't really gone through, because the other two look so good. You get a few more auto-preps but can't change them, you get thunder Spores with super-push, turbo-swim warhorsey form (later on it's Giant Eagle-Penguin), the ever useful "more non-concentration flight with casting this time" mechanic and a fair few resistances, and then double-fly or fly-other (with resistances). Nowhere nearly as exciting as Land or Moon, but looks rather fun. The thunder Spores happening at the end of your turn probably allows for some fairly hefty melee build I haven't figured out yet, alongside martial weapons and feats and decent AC. Lvl3 "extra attack" that scales off wis-mod-d6s can't be bad, can it, even against Con saves? Works in wildshape too, for being a thunder-charge-warhorsey-penguin, in case that ever comes up 😁
(Also looks to be a pretty dippable subclass for martial mains. The build is crying out to me though, even as mono-Druid, just because of Spike Growth. Another other Monk? Irish sea-horses and UAPs/UFOs not-withstanding?)

So, all in all, the base class looks good, 2-out-of-3 subclasses look good, and the third might be pretty good as well. I think they did pretty well with this one. No stupid "make-a-spell" stuff like wizard, but still powerful and versatile at what they do.


((High Elf Land Druid w/Magical Initiate looks to be an awesomely flexible and powerful caster. And there's plenty of good Moon Druid builds too, they're like "anyone can do this".

And, I'm pretty sure Sea has some as well. 5d6 vs Con on +5Wis, no action required, is a path that could be fun, considering you're a Druid. They won't *only* be saving vs Con with your spells and attacks.... Works in WS too, so dumping a Fog Cloud while spidering-blindsight is simple, for unseen blends. Perhaps there is Dark Elf water underground? Same as it ever was))

[Oramac]

I've already just ripped the masteries I liked and turned them into fighting styles. Then you just provide a few to choose from for rogue, monk, barbarian and gishy subclasses same as the fighter, ranger and paladin. If you want variety, let the pure martials change their style at the start of their turn from a pool of styles known like the druids wildshapes. If you pick up multiple fighting style features such as from multiclassing, feats or being a champion you can have more than one style you know active at a time.


My current start is something along the following:
snip

This is what WOTC should have done from the beginning! Great ideas! I'll definitely be using this myself, as well.

[Mongobear]

I've already just ripped the masteries I liked and turned them into fighting styles. Then you just provide a few to choose from for rogue, monk, barbarian and gishy subclasses same as the fighter, ranger and paladin. If you want variety, let the pure martials change their style at the start of their turn from a pool of styles known like the druids wildshapes. If you pick up multiple fighting style features such as from multiclassing, feats or being a champion you can have more than one style you know active at a time.

This sort of thing is what the masteries should be, expanded fighting style/feat combinations to give a bunch more options for 1st level Feats.

Think like the 3x Feats from Tasha's--Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher; Weapon Masteries could be designed along these lines, and offered at 1st level to make your initial builds fighting method unique.

Tbh, I already felt like these feat were a sort of "Mastery" category of options, and when the first hints of Weapon Masteries were mentioned, I figured it was going to be something like these, but slightly more narrow/niche. Instead, we get the mess of a design as it currently stands.

[False God]

This is what WOTC should have done from the beginning! Great ideas! I'll definitely be using this myself, as well.

These are basically "stances" that were in 4E and are common in MMO design for fighter-type classes.

[Oramac]

These are basically "stances" that were in 4E and are common in MMO design for fighter-type classes.

I mean, 4e did get a couple things right. Not a lot, but a couple. :D

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, 4e did get a couple things right. Not a lot, but a couple. :D

4e had a lot of good ideas, poorly executed. And some bad ideas, executed in varying degrees of quality. And, to be fair, some good ideas executed well (eg making wizards play the same game as everyone else instead of being designed to be superior from the get go).

5e (2014), imo, has the same pattern, just with a few more "good ideas well executed". So far, 2024 5e has a very few actually good ideas, and none of them have been particularly impressively implemented. Mostly meh ideas implemented half baked.

[False God]

I mean, 4e did get a couple things right. Not a lot, but a couple. :D

I guess my point is more than WotC seems unable to look outside the current edition for ways to improve. Fixing things that aren't broke, changing things that work fine, and generally iterating downward.

Concepts like stances aren't new or complicated, or even something D&D itself has never done before. They're simple, straight-forward, difficult to power-game and provide versatility for their classes. This sort of "elegant simplicity" was an initial selling point of 5E. Now it's just "different for the sake of different". The fact that WotC seems unable to look outside its own boundaries for innovation is generally disheartening.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess my point is more than WotC seems unable to look outside the current edition for ways to improve. Fixing things that aren't broke, changing things that work fine, and generally iterating downward.

Concepts like stances aren't new or complicated, or even something D&D itself has never done before. They're simple, straight-forward, difficult to power-game and provide versatility for their classes. This sort of "elegant simplicity" was an initial selling point of 5E. Now it's just "different for the sake of different". The fact that WotC seems unable to look outside its own boundaries for innovation is generally disheartening.

Agreed.

Although personally, my vision of the fighter (in particular) is that they're a master of all weapons. Not a "I have to tunnel-vision into one weapon style" type.

So I'd love to have the fighter get all of these based on what weapon they're using. Everyone else gets some basic extra properties for weapons, but only the base versions or maybe their choice of one of a few. Fighters get upgraded stuff for whatever weapon they're wielding.

And in a fantasy world, I'd love for fighters to be able to use STR or DEX for anything. A fighter should be able to pick up a teacup and kill you with it. Or wield a greataxe and a bow with equal power. Etc.

[Kane0]

This is what WOTC should have done from the beginning! Great ideas! I'll definitely be using this myself, as well.

This sort of thing is what the masteries should be, expanded fighting style/feat combinations to give a bunch more options for 1st level Feats.


Thanks! I can pencil that into the 'positive feedback' bucket

[Seekergeek]

By and large I think that they are on the right track if this is meant to be an extension of fifth edition. Being old, I remember the transition between 2 and 3rd editions and then the adjustments made that brought about 3.5. I feel like, if play-testing and public forums like this were around then that much of the same kind of discourse would have been bandied about then. I had fallen away from the hobby by the time 4e came around so I don’t know what that was like but for me and my table, these changes seem either positive or inconsequential to our enjoyment.

What I really wanted to ask, though, is whether any of you better internet guys know if there is a one d&d compendium or do I have to keep looking back and forth between the playtest packets to see what is changed and what isn’t every time? Particularly with the modifications made packet to packet on things like fighting styles, feats and spells - it seems like that would be a logical resource for playtesting.

[False God]

Agreed.

Although personally, my vision of the fighter (in particular) is that they're a master of all weapons. Not a "I have to tunnel-vision into one weapon style" type.

So I'd love to have the fighter get all of these based on what weapon they're using. Everyone else gets some basic extra properties for weapons, but only the base versions or maybe their choice of one of a few. Fighters get upgraded stuff for whatever weapon they're wielding.

And in a fantasy world, I'd love for fighters to be able to use STR or DEX for anything. A fighter should be able to pick up a teacup and kill you with it. Or wield a greataxe and a bow with equal power. Etc.

I think if we could get a simple to use but versatile system (like fighting styles) there would be room for both the generalist and the specialist within the same class.

Conceptually, the wizard and the fighter as foils to each other, the wizard being the magic generalist and the fighter being the martial generalist, is a good center point for design. They may not be the best at everything, but they can cover the most ground the quickest. Other classes or specialist subclasses can be better at specific things and do completely different things, but not capable of covering everything.

[Catullus64]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.

Reasons against:

It sands off a sense of unique identity from the progression of a lot of classes.
It clashes thematically with certain classes, most particularly Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, whose particular subclass is their whole class, narratively speaking.
It adds to a mentality in which the real game begins at 3rd level.


Reasons for:

It does a little bit to discourage multiclass dipping, which I find to be one of the more obnoxious game tendencies in 5e.
For brand-new players to whom the Cleric, Warlock, or Sorcerer appeal, choosing something as character-defining as a subclass at character creation, when still learning the game, could be pretty intimidating, so delaying that choice until they've had a chance to learn the ropes might be good.
There is legitimately cool gameplay to be had with the process of these characters learning/acquiring their subclass powers, particularly with the Warlock.

[Oramac]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.
snip

Personally, I have no issue with it. I see the pros and cons and, frankly, none of them matter enough over the others for me to care that much. I do think there's room in the future to play with "advanced classes" or something that break the 3rd level subclass rule, but especially for the PHB I'm on board with it.

[Beelzebub1111]

It clashes thematically with certain classes, most particularly Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, whose particular subclass is their whole class, narratively speaking.

In terms of thematics, clerics don't worship gods anymore nor do they have to listen to them believe in them or follow their teachings or have any faith whatsoever.

[Hurrashane]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.


Most of the time my group starts at 3rd anyway, so the change doesn't effect me. We've been treating levels 1&2 as tutorial levels since 5e launched.

I feel like the change is good for the game overall.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In terms of thematics, clerics don't worship gods anymore nor do they have to listen to them believe in them or follow their teachings or have any faith whatsoever.

Which, to me, is utterly abhorrent.

[Unoriginal]

I guess my point is more than WotC seems unable to look outside the current edition for ways to improve.

They're not even able to look inside the current edition for ways to improve.


All of the work they've shown has big "didn't read the book the assignment was about, but found a summary online" energy.

And their obviously-false, trivialy-verified-as-false "justification" for removing disease immunity only confirms it.

[False God]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.

I have always treated the first couple levels as the "starter levels". The less a player, especially a new one, has to absorb Day 1, the easier it is to get them up to speed quickly.

I like "important class features" (including but not limited to subclass selection) coming at the same intervals. It helps frame the tiers and aids in balancing different class abilities.

I've always been in favor of subclasses starting at the same level.

[Aimeryan]

I have always treated the first couple levels as the "starter levels". The less a player, especially a new one, has to absorb Day 1, the easier it is to get them up to speed quickly.

I like "important class features" (including but not limited to subclass selection) coming at the same intervals. It helps frame the tiers and aids in balancing different class abilities.

I've always been in favor of subclasses starting at the same level.

In that case, shouldn't clerics not get Spells at all until Level 3? It is less.

[False God]

In that case, shouldn't clerics not get Spells at all until Level 3? It is less.

Reductivism doesn't make for much of an argument.

Casting is a core element of the Cleric class. Not giving them spells wouldn't teach players about a core element of the class. That's what the early levels should cover, the core basics of the class.

[Doug Lampert]

Agreed.

Although personally, my vision of the fighter (in particular) is that they're a master of all weapons. Not a "I have to tunnel-vision into one weapon style" type.

So I'd love to have the fighter get all of these based on what weapon they're using. Everyone else gets some basic extra properties for weapons, but only the base versions or maybe their choice of one of a few. Fighters get upgraded stuff for whatever weapon they're wielding.

And in a fantasy world, I'd love for fighters to be able to use STR or DEX for anything. A fighter should be able to pick up a teacup and kill you with it. Or wield a greataxe and a bow with equal power. Etc.

What, that's crazy talk, next thing you know you'll be claiming that knights could use a lance, or a sword, or a mace, or a dismounted lance used as a spear, all in the same day!

Or maybe you'd be insane enough to claim that samurai were expected to know how to use at least two different swords and a bow fairly well, and that most could also use a spear!

Or claiming that roman legionaires routinely carried both javelins and a sword and were not only expected to be able to use both, but also to be able to "punch" people with their shield.

Or going with fiction, you might be claiming that the musketeers used rapiers, daggers, muskets, and pistols, all effectively and often swapping at will.

All nonsence of course, no historical or fictional warrior ever used more than one or at most two weapons effectively in the same day.

But they could of course completely retrain which weapons they were good at before breakfast every day.

Hint for anyone who misses it: The above is something called sarcasm. All weapon masteries all the time is not a significant power boost given the way D&D is actually played, and it is much better flavor-wise. If people carry a golf-bag of weapons and choose the right weapon at the right time, this is what's called a good thing, choices are good, adapting to the foe and situation and paying attention are all good.

[Rukelnikov]

In terms of thematics, clerics don't worship gods anymore nor do they have to listen to them believe in them or follow their teachings or have any faith whatsoever.

Then why call them Clerics?

[verbatim]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.

Reasons against:

It sands off a sense of unique identity from the progression of a lot of classes.
It clashes thematically with certain classes, most particularly Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, whose particular subclass is their whole class, narratively speaking.
It adds to a mentality in which the real game begins at 3rd level.


Reasons for:

It does a little bit to discourage multiclass dipping, which I find to be one of the more obnoxious game tendencies in 5e.
For brand-new players to whom the Cleric, Warlock, or Sorcerer appeal, choosing something as character-defining as a subclass at character creation, when still learning the game, could be pretty intimidating, so delaying that choice until they've had a chance to learn the ropes might be good.
There is legitimately cool gameplay to be had with the process of these characters learning/acquiring their subclass powers, particularly with the Warlock.


I feel like it would be a lot simpler to make every class get their subclass at lvl 1, with everyone's first feature being basically flavor/proficiencies.

Only real con is that this increases the importance of every class having a default subclass that is basically just the main class identity, for people multiclassing a 1 lvl dip who don't want to have to juggle two subclass themes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But they could of course completely retrain which weapons they were good at before breakfast every day.

Hint for anyone who misses it: The above is something called sarcasm. All weapon masteries all the time is not a significant power boost given the way D&D is actually played, and it is much better flavor-wise. If people carry a golf-bag of weapons and choose the right weapon at the right time, this is what's called a good thing, choices are good, adapting to the foe and situation and paying attention are all good.

Yeah.


The Armsman in my WIP system (fighter replacement) gets the following at level 2:

Fighting Style

You are better than most at using the additional properties of your weapon. You gain a bonus depending on the additional property. If the weapon has multiple additional properties, you must choose which bonus to apply on any individual attack. If a bonus calls for a saving throw, the DC = 8 + your Strength modifier + your proficiency bonus.

Battering[0] Once per turn when you hit with a battering weapon, you can force the target to make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, the target is knocked prone.

Cleaving [0]You can attempt to cleave even if you miss. If you do so, roll a new attack with the same modifiers and compare it to the new target's AC.

Heavy You can choose to forgo your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. If you still hit, you can add twice your proficiency bonus to the damage dealt.

Light When you make the additional attack[1] with a light weapon, you add your ability modifier to the damage dealt.

Loading You ignore the normal effect of this property[4]. Instead, when you hit with an attack from a loading weapon and drop the target to 0 HP, you can choose to have the bolt pass through at a creature behind the slain creature. The closest creature on a 5' wide line connecting you to the slain creature and extending 30' behind him acts as the new target. Make an attack at disadvantage against that creature. If it hits, it takes damage as normal from the attack.

Parrying[0] The bonus from this property increases to +4.

Precise[0] You score a critical hit on an 18, 19, or 20 instead of on a 19 or 20.

Reach You can make opportunity attacks when a creature enters your range as well as leaves it.

Thrown You can draw thrown weapons as part of the attack. In addition, the damage die increases by one step when thrown and you do not suffer disadvantage out to the long range of the attack.

Versatile You get the increased damage die even when wielding it in one hand.

--------
[0] Battering, cleaving, parrying, and precise are new weapon properties:
- Battering gives "When you miss on an attack with a Battering weapon and do not roll a 1, the target still takes damage equal to your proficiency bonus" and mostly applies to bludgeoning weapons.
- Cleaving gives "Once per turn when you hit with a Cleaving weapon, you can attempt to carry some of the damage onto another target within your reach. If you do so, compare the initial attack roll to the new target's AC. If it hits, they take the same damage as the initial target." and is mostly on heavy-ish weapons and scimitars.
- Parrying gives "When you take the Deflect[2] action while wielding a parrying weapon, you also add +2 to your AC against that attack."
- Precise gives "These weapons are well adapted to finding the gaps in heavily-armored foes. When you make an attack with a precise weapon and have advantage, you score a critical hit on a 19 or 20." and is on daggers, rapiers, and a couple other piercing-type weapons.

These weapon properties are available to anyone who has proficiency, but the system makes getting proficiency harder unless you're a gish-type class or a martial-type class. No multiclassing, among other things.

[1] I've rewritten TWF to just always not require a bonus action. This references that.
[2] A new action anyone can take: "When you are targeted by an attack while you are wearing armor or are affected by mage armor, you can use your reaction and spend 2 STA[3] to add your proficiency bonus to your AC against that attack. You must use this reaction before you know the outcome of the attack, but if you take this action and the attack misses, you can immediately make either a melee attack against them with a weapon or shield you are wielding or attempt to Shove them as part of the reaction. If you attack them with a shield, it counts as a melee weapon with a 1d4 damage die for that attack. If you do not have a weapon or shield in hand, you cannot make this special attack." Note that the shield spell is completely different and no longer adds AC.
[3] STA is a universal resource. Everyone has some, but martials have a lot more (usually level + CON) and recharge it on a short rest. Full casters only have half-level. Gishes/half-casters are somewhere in between. It's used for a lot of martial stuff and skill tricks, as well as some other universal actions.
[4] Ie can shoot more than once per turn with a crossbow.




Then why call them Clerics?

My thought exactly. Power from worship/faith is the defining characteristic of a cleric. It's what sets them apart from everyone else. Without it, you don't have a class at all.

[Xervous]

How do people feel about the principle of having all classes receive their subclasses at 3rd Level? While I was rather against it to begin with, I'm now more ambivalent.


Subclass at 3 is a simple change to reduce the occurrence of dipping for bennies. The other part of the equation is that so many classes were encouraged to dip because their progression all but vanished into thin air. With a sizable quantity of classes having a dearth of level appropriate, desirable features beyond 10, I’m mostly convinced they just chose the easy out in punting the MC question to higher levels rather than giving classes worthwhile progressions.

Rogue is an outlier now, it gets a constant parade of features. 7: reliable talent, 9: some meaty subclass bennies , 11: two cunning strikes on one SA, 13: dashing strikes and Use Magic Device are both tasty, 14: oh look (something vaguely approaching) level relevant cunning strikes, 15: proficiency in TWO saves? Sure. Why can’t other classes get this quality of focus and synergy in their progression?

Classes like ranger hit a high note, then fall silent for a number of levels just to come up with lukewarm offerings. Usually by 7-10 the non rogue, non fullcaster classes invite the eye to wander for multiclassing.

[MoiMagnus]

In terms of thematics, clerics don't worship gods anymore nor do they have to listen to them believe in them or follow their teachings or have any faith whatsoever.

I think you're confusing clerics ans paladins. Even in things playtest cleric are drill clearly relate to gods:



Clerics draw power from the realms of the gods
and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a
deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a
Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the
Outer Planes—where gods dwell—and channel
that energy to bolster people and to battle foes


Sure, the rules are worded in a way that you can have a cleric of "technically not a god, but still an immortal living in the plan of gods". And the GM is free to be more or less strict about what it means to get power from a god (how much you need to follow their principles, etc). But the huge majority of clerics would still be praying gods as one would expect.

(Contrary to paladins)

[False God]

My thought exactly. Power from worship/faith is the defining characteristic of a cleric. It's what sets them apart from everyone else. Without it, you don't have a class at all.

The problem is the handling at the table. You either make it highly mechanical, which really doesn't feel like faith, or you leave it up to pure roleplay, where faith is a sensitive subject. If your particular faith doesn't have discrete rules, it becomes difficult for a DM to tell you how your character behaves, or if they do, it quickly makes the DM overbearing.

I've generally had poor experiences with people attempting to emphasize the faith element at the table.

And there's never been a mechanical element of the cleric whereby "I believe extra hard right now" has any impact on play at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is the handling at the table. You either make it highly mechanical, which really doesn't feel like faith, or you leave it up to pure roleplay, where faith is a sensitive subject. If your particular faith doesn't have discrete rules, it becomes difficult for a DM to tell you how your character behaves, or if they do, it quickly makes the DM overbearing.

I've generally had poor experiences with people attempting to emphasize the faith element at the table.

And there's never been a mechanical element of the cleric whereby "I believe extra hard right now" has any impact on play at all.

That's all because people seem to think "no mechanical elements" === "not a rule". No, it's a roleplaying rule. And yes, those are valid rules. Just like you can't say "well, I feel like my arrows should do 2d20 damage because I shoot them really hard", you can't say "I don't feel like worshiping a god but I still want cleric powers."

But if that's how you really believe, then drop the cleric class entirely. And the paladin class. And the warlock. Because those all have "forced roleplaying" elements at their core. Heck, even the ranger and rogue and wizard and sorcerer and bard (and come to think of it...all of the classes) have those elements in them.

Class-based games work best when the players lean into the core class fiction of their chosen class. Not forced to, but when people choose clerics because they want to roleplay having faith and being tied to a god. Or choose barbarian because they want to roleplay gaining strength through emotions, including anger. Etc. Treating classes like disposable bags of mechanics just makes a mockery of everything that a class-based system actually does well.

I don't expect the DM to do the enforcing here--I expect the player to lean in heavily and play a consistent role, consistent with the class description unless they've worked with the DM to create an alternate one (ie homebrew). Homebrew for non-mechanical rules is just as much homebrew as changing HD size or anything else. There is no rule-based distinction between "mechanics" and anything else.

[False God]

That's all because people seem to think "no mechanical elements" === "not a rule". No, it's a roleplaying rule. And yes, those are valid rules. Just like you can't say "well, I feel like my arrows should do 2d20 damage because I shoot them really hard", you can't say "I don't feel like worshiping a god but I still want cleric powers."

But if that's how you really believe, then drop the cleric class entirely. And the paladin class. And the warlock. Because those all have "forced roleplaying" elements at their core. Heck, even the ranger and rogue and wizard and sorcerer and bard (and come to think of it...all of the classes) have those elements in them.
Fundamentally, I'd prefer a "white mage" who can do healing stuff, a "green mage" who can do druid stuff and a "black mage" who can do warlock stuff. The default Wizard, the magical generalist, could be the Blue Mage or whatever. Maybe come up with something else to fill in the last color of Red Mage, I dunno. D&D doesn't do enough to differentiate the forms of casting between 90% of its magic classes, and I fail to see a functional difference between them. I'd rather see one umbrella class with defining subclasses, and maybe even some subclasses from that.

And I don't really care for half-casters either, just multiclass.


Class-based games work best when the players lean into the core class fiction of their chosen class. Not forced to, but when people choose clerics because they want to roleplay having faith and being tied to a god. Or choose barbarian because they want to roleplay gaining strength through emotions, including anger. Etc. Treating classes like disposable bags of mechanics just makes a mockery of everything that a class-based system actually does well.
Well, then D&D has been mocking itself for decades.

I personally have no objection to clerics revering ideologies or having "personal faith" either. Again, D&D doesn't do enough to differentiate the casting style of its casting classes for me to care about the single-word "Power Source" note that says "Divine".

Want faith to matter? Then there needs to be mechanics that make faith matter. Stronger faith should make stronger clerics. More powerful gods should have more powerful clerics (and not just higher level). "Faith Checks" should determine the strength of a spell, either its damage or how high a spell level you can cast. Something like that. But that's wildly unbalanced. The whole cleric class would essentially be "make a faith roll every day at dawn, the result is your level today."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fundamentally, I'd prefer a "white mage" who can do healing stuff, a "green mage" who can do druid stuff and a "black mage" who can do warlock stuff. The default Wizard, the magical generalist, could be the Blue Mage or whatever. Maybe come up with something else to fill in the last color of Red Mage, I dunno. D&D doesn't do enough to differentiate the forms of casting between 90% of its magic classes, and I fail to see a functional difference between them. I'd rather see one umbrella class with defining subclasses, and maybe even some subclasses from that.

And I don't really care for half-casters either, just multiclass.


Great. Then play some other system or make your own. D&D has had these kinds of rules and differentiations since the beginning.

Edit: I should note I'm putting my money (well, time, really) where my mouth is and making my own system that conforms better to my desires.



Well, then D&D has been mocking itself for decades.

I personally have no objection to clerics revering ideologies or having "personal faith" either. Again, D&D doesn't do enough to differentiate the casting style of its casting classes for me to care about the single-word "Power Source" note that says "Divine".

Want faith to matter? Then there needs to be mechanics that make faith matter. Stronger faith should make stronger clerics. More powerful gods should have more powerful clerics (and not just higher level). "Faith Checks" should determine the strength of a spell, either its damage or how high a spell level you can cast. Something like that. But that's wildly unbalanced. The whole cleric class would essentially be "make a faith roll every day at dawn, the result is your level today."

You seem to be insisting that mechanical rules are the only rules of any consequence. That everything must be mechanized to matter. I strongly disagree. D&D strongly disagrees. To me, what you want sounds like a board game, not a TTRPG. If everything is mechanized and only the mechanics matter...then there is no fiction layer. And without that, you don't have a TTRPG.

[False God]

Great. Then play some other system or make your own. D&D has had these kinds of rules and differentiations since the beginning.

Edit: I should note I'm putting my money (well, time, really) where my mouth is and making my own system that conforms better to my desires.
Great have fun with that. This isn't much of an argument about how the game should handle itself is you're first going to tell me that the game is wrong and when I proprose something different to resolve it that I'm wrong.

"You're wrong" isn't an argument.

My resolution to the "faith" issue is to remove it.


You seem to be insisting that mechanical rules are the only rules of any consequence. That everything must be mechanized to matter. I strongly disagree. D&D strongly disagrees. To me, what you want sounds like a board game, not a TTRPG. If everything is mechanized and only the mechanics matter...then there is no fiction layer. And without that, you don't have a TTRPG.

If there aren't rules, why did I buy a book? For it to say "Do what is appropriate to your table." Yeah, I don't need a rulebook for that.

You seem to be fundamentally missing what a TTRPG provides that anyone at home couldn't make up before dinner. The "G" stands for "game", games are defined by their rules. Games without rules are Calvinball. I've played at enough tables to recognize DMs who favor Calvinball over rules. So the game better be providing those rules so we can all have a starting reference point for our expectations on how the game should operate.

And yes, you're going to respond with "Well I was talking about roleplay rules." Rules are rules. All rules are part of the mechanics of the game. If a rule says "you must worship a god and you must pray at dawn" thats still a rule. It may allow for variation in its execution, but it's still part of the mechanics since the next line of the rule reads "Or you lose your divine-granted abilities". Those are rules, and those are mechanics. The fact that they allow creative flavor doesn't change that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yes, you're going to respond with "Well I was talking about roleplay rules." Rules are rules. All rules are part of the mechanics of the game. If a rule says "you must worship a god and you must pray at dawn" thats still a rule. It may allow for variation in its execution, but it's still part of the mechanics since the next line of the rule reads "Or you lose your divine-granted abilities". Those are rules, and those are mechanics. The fact that they allow creative flavor doesn't change that.

Every single piece of the rule book, absent a specific statement to the contrary, is a rule. Whether it gives a penalty for non-compliance or not. Whether it can be expressed in mechanical terms or not.

The class introductions? Yup, they're just as much rules as anything else. The class rules do not start with the heading Features.

There is a specific statement in the cleric class entry:



Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes.


And the entry is replete with such mentions. Those are rules. Just as much as any wording you propose is. The fact that you ignore it is homebrew and houserules.