2024 Playtest Changes That Are Likely to Stick

[Psyren]

The most recent Survey Results video (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?658666-New-Survey-Results-Video) indicates the design team is planning to revert to the mean/to 2014 design on several of their ideas for the 2024 books, and walk back some of the bigger changes they had planned.

Whether you agree with this approach or not, I thought it might be handy to catalogue some of the larger changes coming out of the playtest that we either know for sure, or at least can reasonably predict, will make it to the next PHB. Here are mine:


Feats


Every character getting 1st-level feats in core
Feats having level requirements / most or all 4th-level feats being half-feats
Removal/toning down of "Power Attack" feats (GWM/SS)


Races


Removal of fixed ASIs
Subraces being either removed or turned into separate races
Half-races being a cosmetic option
Removal of Variant Human


Classes


Martials: Weapon Mastery
Druid: QOL Wild Shape changes (using your own HP, being able to speak.)
Sorcerer: Metamagic rebalancing is going through (minus Twinned/Seeking which are bing redesigned.)
Barbarian: Rage improvements (10 min, Primal Savagery, Thrown.)
Fighter: Indomitable buff and better use of Weapon Mastery
Rogue: Cunning Strike
Ranger/Warlock: HM and Hex being 1/round



Did I miss any? What do you think is the likelihood of these changes surviving? And lastly, are there any you don't like?

[Brookshw]

I'm generally in favor of all of these. Mixed feelings on toning down GWM and am not sure that the introduction of weapon properties fully balances it out; final opinion TBD once the next edition is fully laid out and we can understand all options available to characters.

[LudicSavant]

And lastly, are there any you don't like?

I dislike Weapon Mastery being limited to so few weapons. Further encourages the "pick a particular weapon and keep using that one, all of the time" pattern.

As for the removal of variant human, I hope that whatever replaces it will be similarly effective. At the very least, significantly moreso than the current non-variant human we have in 2014 5e.

[Zevox]

Did I miss any?
Paladins only being able to use Divine Smite once per turn, either through explicit statement in the rules for it or by making it a spell that uses a bonus action.

All subclasses start at level 3.

There's definitely more, but that's what I can come up with off the top of my head that they seem set on.


What do you think is the likelihood of these changes surviving?
Probably pretty high, for most of them though it's hard to be sure for ones from the most recent playtest. They did mention they'd seen a lot of requests for Hex to be better in feedback in that last video though, so the 1/round Hex (and by extension Hunter's Mark) thing may go away.


And lastly, are there any you don't like?
Oh, heck yes. The Paladin smite change I mentioned above. Basically every Wild Shape (and Moon Druid) change. Half-Elf being removed (Half-Orc bothers me much less because it was always primarily a substitute for Orc, which is in now; though I still think reworking it to differ more from a full Orc and keeping it would be preferable). Hex/Hunter's Mark at 1/round. Removal of some sub-races, mildly. Feat chains, mildly. And that's just from your list and my memory.

In a sense, you could even include Weapon Mastery, though my problem there is that it doesn't go far enough to make me consider using it over the Weapon Manuever rules my group already uses.

[KorvinStarmast]

post
Response: remove variant human? Bad idea. It ought to be the default.
Remove sub races: concur. They weren't needed.
Getting rid of half elves and half orcs: meh, no opinion, can live with them and can live without them.
Their decision to add the orc race was a decent one to replace half orc.
I still have a "genasi need to be core!" opinion, but I do not see them having responded to my feedback on that.

What do you mean by this?

Ranger/Warlock: HM and Hex being 1/round

[Zevox]

As for the removal of variant human, I hope that whatever replaces it will be similarly effective. At the very least, significantly moreso than the current non-variant human we have in 2014 5e.

Response: remove variant human? Bad idea. It ought to be the default.
Did you guys just forget the first playtest? The new Human is basically a slightly revised Variant Human, yes. They get a feat, a skill, and gain Inspiration after every long rest. Given they haven't been brought up since that first playtest, odds are they didn't feel any changes were necessary to them.


What do you mean by this?
The bonus damage portion of those spells only triggers once per round in the revisions we've seen.

[Oramac]

are there any you don't like?


Oh, heck yes. The Paladin smite change I mentioned above

100% agreed. I've been extremely vocal in my feedback about this, though I suspect it will fall on deaf ears. They've got it in their head and I highly doubt they'll change their mind. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[Amechra]

So... do the Rage improvements include Primal Knowledge? Because I like Primal Knowledge.

[Aimeryan]

The most recent Survey Results video (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?658666-New-Survey-Results-Video) indicates the design team is planning to revert to the mean/to 2014 design on several of their ideas for the 2024 books, and walk back some of the bigger changes they had planned.

Whether you agree with this approach or not, I thought it might be handy to catalogue some of the larger changes coming out of the playtest that we either know for sure, or at least can reasonably predict, will make it to the next PHB. Here are mine:


Feats


Every character getting 1st-level feats in core - Good: makes lower level character more interesting
Feats having level requirements / most or all 4th-level feats being half-feats - Neutral: This is essentially just a balancing point with the level 1 feats being added
Removal/toning down of "Power Attack" feats (GWM/SS) - Good & Bad: Removing Feat taxes allows more freedom, however, -5/+10 were tactically interesting and that has now been lost - Suggestion: have these be added to the Fighting Style feature as a sign of martial training)


Races - Neutral: Eh, moving the furniture around

Removal of fixed ASIs
Subraces being either removed or turned into separate races
Half-races being a cosmetic option
Removal of Variant Human


Classes


Martials: Weapon Mastery - Good & Bad: More strategic choices for martial, however, tactically void due to choice restrictions and frankly kind of boring passive boosts - Suggestion: Make it more like Cunning Strike in terms of tradeoffs for interesting effects, with no restriction on choice other than requiring a weapon type with that ability (make Fighter's shtick improve this in another way)
Druid: QOL Wild Shape changes (using your own HP, being able to speak.) - Neutral & Bad: The base class changes are fine, however, the Moon Druid got mechanically buried losing the tank niche (which was the only niche it had after early levels) - Suggestion: Scaling the form by using Spell Slots (taking into account that they need to give conversion value which would be difficult without overshadowing martials), however, I really think this feature shouldn't be on a full caster class (Barbarian would be my choice)
Sorcerer: Metamagic rebalancing is going through (minus Twinned/Seeking which are bing redesigned.) - Good & Neutral: Balance fixes for the weaker options, however, need to see the Twinned rework given how bad the previous rework was
Barbarian: Rage improvements (10 min, Primal Savagery, Thrown.) - Good: Needed improvements
Fighter: Indomitable buff and better use of Weapon Mastery - Bad: The shtick here is really crippling what Weapon Mastery could be by default - Suggestion: Difficult to say without a Weapon Mastery rework first, but the features shouldn't be allowing for things (since that cripples others) they should instead be improving what is already there
Rogue: Cunning Strike - Good & Bad: Love this design, however, further punishes Rogues' already poor damage - Suggestion: Combo points or something, where you have a small pool that increments with every attack you do or some other builder mechanic that can be spent when needed
Ranger/Warlock: HM and Hex being 1/round - Neutral: Trap spells still bad, eh, maybe less people will pick them now though



Did I miss any? What do you think is the likelihood of these changes surviving? And lastly, are there any you don't like?

Added my thoughts to the quote directly. Other thoughts are more that these are just things that could have been in a splat (like Tasha's), which is very disappointing for a new/rework edition. Where are the exciting experimentations? Of the top of my head, here are some things they could have tried (and dumped as appropriate!):

-3.5e Tome of Battle style maneuvers for martials.
-Move Circle of the Moon style to Barbarian and have this feature properly be fleshed out and scaled, rather than on a full caster that already has too high of a budget.
-Balanced and thoughtout Spellpoint system implemented for Sorcerers to make them more distinct from Wizards and offer an alternative for the player. 3.5e Ardent style.
-Flesh out the Skill system.
-Flesh out the Survival pillar.
-Move all casters to Short Rest mechanics, to get away from the 5MWD consequence.
-Sort out vision and sound rules, allowing for proper stealth play that isn't 90% DM fiat.

[animewatcha]

Apparently there is a vocal minority on social media (that needs to {Scrubbed}) that is ruining the game for everyone despite some changes being well received from feedback.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15ts6rk/jeremy_crawford_admits_that_several_playtest/?%24deep_link=true&correlation_id=f7761e8f-e51b-4262-9d97-974c98d5e6e4&post_fullname=t3_15ts6rk&post_index=3&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&utm_content=post_body&%243p=e_as&_branch_match_id=762171423333880334&utm_medium=Email%20Amazon%20SES&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA22Q62rDMAyFnyb7l4bGa dIMyhiMvYZxLaX16huysjRvP6W7%2FBrYcPgO0jnoypzLc9MQA jjemZx33sVbo%2FJL1XYqn1Cb8iQykbu4aLyeyZ%2Bu21SlXqv 2Xd6yLLufeZuCAJIPESLeWZSwgJGLyP2BS083UR9IGFZtySxTI tAGguOi%2BWpYF%2FxEkqTszcpYth2VkqAOELPe6lXqjWnGqu1 tIkJv2KWoHQifhqHf43Gq8bA%2F113bt%2FUI41CPQ2fHIxywx 07mciqsp9n7aAJu65T%2BK%2Fdtugh4F0cJIJxEYTDOa3CXR6c NamtCNu4S%2F3dLmsnirydw5qBtiiznEPqIOSdYvwBz30lqhQE AAA%3D%3D

[animorte]

Apparently there is a vocal minority on social media (that needs to {Scrub the post, scrub the post}) that is ruining the game for everyone despite some changes being well received from feedback.
Yeah, I happened upon that article too. Treantmonk also has a video out discussing whether or not all the recent playtests were just a waste of time since they seem to be rolling back most of the changes regardless of score. Statistically this isn't true, but it still doesn't feel great.

I recently mentioned in another thread they just don't seem interested in putting in the extra work despite the majority votes. At minimum I just want them to incorporate improvements on all the classes made via splatbooks (Ranger, more invocations, etc.).

[LudicSavant]

Added my thoughts to the quote directly.

Agreed with an awful lot of these. Especially the bits about Fighting Styles being crippled by the Fighter choice.

[JackPhoenix]

Apparently there is a vocal minority on social media (that needs to {Scrub the quote, scrub the post}) that is ruining the game for everyone despite some changes being well received from feedback.

Oh hell no. If anything, they need to listen more to people who can actually express an opinion and provide feedback instead of just anonymously asigning meaningless unexplained score.

[KorvinStarmast]

The bonus damage portion of those spells only triggers once per round in the revisions we've seen. Dislike that, particularly on hunter's mark.

Oh hell no. If anything, they need to listen more to people who can actually express an opinion and provide feedback instead of just anonymously assigning meaningless unexplained score. Yep.



-Sort out vision and sound rules, allowing for proper stealth play that isn't 90% DM fiat. Enjoyed your post, agree on that.

At minimum I just want them to incorporate improvements on all the classes made via splatbooks (Ranger, more invocations, etc.). More invocations. Yes. :smallsmile:

[Dienekes]

Did I miss any? What do you think is the likelihood of these changes surviving? And lastly, are there any you don't like?

Let’s go positive and negative. Because I’m tired of complaining all the time.

Things I like:

-I love Cunning Strike. Wish they could expand it even more. When I think of my favorite rogues in fiction I think of crazy disruptors flying by the seat of their pants making their opponents lives miserable more than damaging them. This doesn’t quite make that a reality but it’s closer to it than the Rogue has been for years.

-I think conceptually weapon masteries are great and having Fighters being the masters of them is an excellent display of what the Fighter’s core fantasy is.

-Indomitable buff is also great.

-Barbarian’s Primal Knowledge is a nice step in the right direction. Give everyone out of combat capabilities. I just wish they went even further.

-I’m a little less excited by it but still think what they’re doing with feats is a good idea.

Things I’m weighing my opinion on:

-I’m more up in the air about Wild Shape. Now where I’m coming from, playing Moon Druid has been so far the most fun I’ve had playing 5e as a player. I recognize some nerfs were necessary. It’s the buff I’m kinda iffy on. Letting them speak is undoubtedly a quality of life improvement, but I actually like limitations that force creative roleplay. And playing around with that was one of them.

The negative:

-Still not a fan of unfixed ASIs but that fight was lost awhile back now.

-While I approve of Weapon Mastery conceptually I still think it is about one of the most boring iterations on making unique weapon properties. Especially with the fun I’m having in BG3 with their version of the same thing. Or other games with better martial combat mechanics.

-The mini-spell list nature of a lot of subraces is pretty dull.

-The general change to once per round damage mechanics. Come on, let’s make some mechanics that actually favor certain play decisions over others.

-It really seems to me that they’re trying to make the Rangers core mechanic Hunter’s Mark. But I just don’t think it has nearly the fun or impact of Rage, Ki Points, Sneak Attack, or Smite.

-Subclasses starting at 3. There are certain classes where the flavor does not make sense to start that late. And the justifications are either weird, nonexistent, or silly.


Apparently there is a vocal minority on social media (that needs to STFU) that is ruining the game for everyone despite some changes being well received from feedback.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15ts6rk/jeremy_crawford_admits_that_several_playtest/?%24deep_link=true&correlation_id=f7761e8f-e51b-4262-9d97-974c98d5e6e4&post_fullname=t3_15ts6rk&post_index=3&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&utm_content=post_body&%243p=e_as&_branch_match_id=762171423333880334&utm_medium=Email%20Amazon%20SES&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA22Q62rDMAyFnyb7l4bGa dIMyhiMvYZxLaX16huysjRvP6W7%2FBrYcPgO0jnoypzLc9MQA jjemZx33sVbo%2FJL1XYqn1Cb8iQykbu4aLyeyZ%2Bu21SlXqv 2Xd6yLLufeZuCAJIPESLeWZSwgJGLyP2BS083UR9IGFZtySxTI tAGguOi%2BWpYF%2FxEkqTszcpYth2VkqAOELPe6lXqjWnGqu1 tIkJv2KWoHQifhqHf43Gq8bA%2F113bt%2FUI41CPQ2fHIxywx 07mciqsp9n7aAJu65T%2BK%2Fdtugh4F0cJIJxEYTDOa3CXR6c NamtCNu4S%2F3dLmsnirydw5qBtiiznEPqIOSdYvwBz30lqhQE AAA%3D%3D

Hey just like the last playtest.

Next Fighters were pretty cool, still needed some work, but were legitimately fun. Until a crowd decided that Fighter needed to be the simple class for beginners.

[Damon_Tor]

And lastly, are there any you don't like?

The removal of half-elves as a mechanically distinct option pisses me off.

[Unoriginal]

Oh hell no. If anything, they need to listen more to people who can actually express an opinion and provide feedback instead of just anonymously asigning meaningless unexplained score.

Indeed.

Those who input those scores are explicitly and purposely a narrow subset of the D&D audience.

Even if something was an unambiguously hit among the people taking the survey, but every single other D&D-audience member expressed disliking it, the devs need to acknowledge that.

Maybe not prioritize it, but stopping listening to it would be an enormous mistake.


That being said, what the devs should do is have a clear vision for what they want, and not try to design a game by public vote. Because the public is impossible to satisfy in its entirety because everyone wants different thing.

Being open to feedbacks is good. But you can't make a movie by filling a cinema with people and asking them what movie they want to see, nor can you make a game by gathering players and asking them what they want to play.

[Zevox]

Let’s go positive and negative. Because I’m tired of complaining all the time.
You know what, sure, let's:

- Everyone getting floating ASIs at character creation. (Though Tasha's already allowed this, so it's kind of redundant...)
- Dwarves' Stonecunning turning into a Tremorsense ability.
- Tieflings having subraces based on the specific lower plane they're tied to. (Though oh boy, if they don't change the Abyssal version, do they get shafted compared to the others...)
- New Dragonborn being heavily based on the Fizban's version. (Though I prefer the Fizban's version because of the three variations...)
- The new Sharpshooter giving non-crossbow archers the "ignore disadvantage to shots when in melee" effect that was previously Crossbow Expert exclusive.
- Berserker Barbarian and Ranger having their issues addressed, even if they're not (sub-)classes I have much attachment to personally. (Now, if only the same could be done to Four Elements Monk...)
- Rogue's Cunning/Devious Strike. Probably the best idea they've had in this whole playtest, and I'm not even a Rogue player.
- Sorcerer metamagic tweaks (minus Twinned Spell).
- Paladin auto-preparing all Smite spells. (Though I'd gladly trade this for allowing Divine Smite to work as it does in 5e.)
- They're at least trying to introduce something to make weapons more distinct and varied with Weapon Mastery, even if I think the implementation is lacking.

That's basically it, I think. Which probably gives you a good idea of about how much these revisions have been thrilling me in general, particularly given all the caveats I felt the need to include. But hey, where I stand is that I'm really happy with 5e as-is, and mostly just want a handful of specific outlier issues (like Warlock/Monk short rest dependency, or Four Elements Monk) addressed. Big changes elsewhere are not something I was ever looking for, unless they're particularly good ideas like Cunning/Devious Strike, and IMO most of them have not been anything of the sort.

[Unoriginal]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/15ts6rk/jeremy_crawford_admits_that_several_playtest/?%24deep_link=true&correlation_id=f7761e8f-e51b-4262-9d97-974c98d5e6e4&post_fullname=t3_15ts6rk&post_index=3&ref=email_digest&ref_campaign=email_digest&ref_source=email&utm_content=post_body&%243p=e_as&_branch_match_id=762171423333880334&utm_medium=Email%20Amazon%20SES&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA22Q62rDMAyFnyb7l4bGa dIMyhiMvYZxLaX16huysjRvP6W7%2FBrYcPgO0jnoypzLc9MQA jjemZx33sVbo%2FJL1XYqn1Cb8iQykbu4aLyeyZ%2Bu21SlXqv 2Xd6yLLufeZuCAJIPESLeWZSwgJGLyP2BS083UR9IGFZtySxTI tAGguOi%2BWpYF%2FxEkqTszcpYth2VkqAOELPe6lXqjWnGqu1 tIkJv2KWoHQifhqHf43Gq8bA%2F113bt%2FUI41CPQ2fHIxywx 07mciqsp9n7aAJu65T%2BK%2Fdtugh4F0cJIJxEYTDOa3CXR6c NamtCNu4S%2F3dLmsnirydw5qBtiiznEPqIOSdYvwBz30lqhQE AAA%3D%3D

A good point from reddit user matgopack:


Players are generally a lot better at identifying that something is not working well than at identifying the best solutions, yeah.

[KorvinStarmast]

-I think conceptually weapon masteries are great and having Fighters being the masters of them is an excellent display of what the Fighter’s core fantasy is. And conceptually wild magic for sorcerers was a great idea. Implementation didn't quite get there. (I agree, weapon masteries if done well will be a nice improvement).


-Indomitable buff is also great. Concur.


still think what they’re doing with feats is a good idea. Massively dislike what they are doing with feats.

Things I’m weighing my opinion on:


-I’m more up in the air about Wild Shape.
I love the idea someone suggested of moving Circle of the Moon druid to the Barbarian class. That would take a bit of work to get "just right" though. And they still need to make WS better for the D&Done Druid.


-The mini-spell list nature of a lot of subraces is pretty dull.
Spells ought to come with classes, unless like the high elf a cantrip comes as part of the package.


-Subclasses starting at 3. There are certain classes where the flavor does not make sense to start that late. And the justifications are either weird, nonexistent, or silly. This is a think where I'd rather see a more common progression. And as a dip prevention I fully concur.


Next Fighters were pretty cool, still needed some work, but were legitimately fun. Aah, what could have been. And they could have not screwed up Warlock by making it a Cha caster, but instead made them an INT caster as originally laid down in Next. :smallfurious:

The removal of half-elves as a mechanically distinct option pisses me off. They took Half Orcs with them. I won't miss either although I enjoyed my play of both half elves and half orcs.

Personal rant: Genasi ought to be core. :smallfurious:

[Kane0]

With how well BG3 went i wouldnt be surprised at all if Gith made it into the PHB

[Zevox]

With how well BG3 went i wouldnt be surprised at all if Gith made it into the PHB
I would be. Those are still very weird, exotic races, not even being native to the material plane and all.

[LudicSavant]

I would be. Those are still very weird, exotic races, not even being native to the material plane and all.

Who says that PHB races can't be weird? This is the same argument people used against tieflings, drow, and orcs (as opposed to half-orcs) in the past.

Gith would be a way better addition to the Player's Handbook than some of the things they've considered adding (remember the furry aasimar?) and if they are implemented even half as well as the race is in BG3 it'd be a hit. If anything, I feel introducing players to the idea that they can (and frankly should) be exploring more than just the material plane in the player's handbook sounds like a good thing to me.

[JackPhoenix]

I would be. Those are still very weird, exotic races, not even being native to the material plane and all.

You mean just like their stupid furry aasimar wannabe they've tried to push?

[Zevox]

Gith would be a far more natural addition to the Player's Handbook than many of the things they've considered adding (remember the furry aasimar?) and if they are implemented even half as well as the race is in BG3 it'd be great.

You mean just like their stupid furry aasimar wannabe they've tried to push?
Being a more natural addition than Ardlings is a low bar, and they eventually backed off those specifically because they decided they didn't belong in the PHB and should be published elsewhere.

[Kane0]

They arent all that wierd, they have a few traits that are replicated by spells (tiefling does that) and they hate mind flayers (who appear on the prime).

[Tanarii]

Oh hell no. If anything, they need to listen more to people who can actually express an opinion and provide feedback instead of just anonymously asigning meaningless unexplained score.

They're using a meaningless metric anyway.

The choices in the survey should be:
- this features doesn't need to be changed from the PHB version
- this feature needs to be changed but this is completely the wrong direction
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs a significant rework
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs tweaking
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, and looks good as is

That gives them 2 top level metrics (change vs don't), if they're on the right path, and how good the suggested change is if it's the right path.

[Kane0]

The choices in the survey should be:
- this features doesn't need to be changed from the PHB version
- this feature needs to be changed but this is completely the wrong direction
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs a significant rework
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs tweaking
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, and looks good as is

That gives them 2 top level metrics (change vs don't), if they're on the right path, and how good the suggested change is if it's the right path.

Now that's a survey i'd be more happy filling out.

[KorvinStarmast]

You mean just like their stupid furry aasimar wannabe they've tried to push? Why not just make aasimar core? How hard would that be? Nice complement to their core tiefling.

Now that's a survey i'd be more happy filling out. Likewise.

[LudicSavant]

They're using a meaningless metric anyway.

The choices in the survey should be:
- this features doesn't need to be changed from the PHB version
- this feature needs to be changed but this is completely the wrong direction
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs a significant rework
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, but needs tweaking
- this feature needs to be changed and this is the right direction, and looks good as is

That gives them 2 top level metrics (change vs don't), if they're on the right path, and how good the suggested change is if it's the right path.

This is so much better. (Though it does still involve rating individual features in a vacuum)

[Keravath]

The problem with redesigning 5e is that (from my perspective anyway) ... 5e is already fundamentally GOOD.

There are several areas that I think could be better written and clarified. There are some mechanics that could be improved for either balance or aesthetic reasons. They could put a bit more thought into mechanisms that would make high level play fun for all classes.

However - THIS is the source of the fundamental problem. My ideas on what could use fixing are not the same as other players/DMs. Stuff I think is fine, others think is horribly unbalanced so when you run a survey you get significant disapproval from a vocal minority and quiet acceptance from a "silent" majority (people tend to yell at things they don't like - praise or existing stuff is less common).

From a game design perspective, how do you effectively change things without blowing a hole in your game and making it less popular by listening to a vocal minority? They do not want another 4e fiasco. They want to sell more 5e books and grow the audience and number of players/DMs so they want enough changes to justify a new printing that everyone will buy (because there are enough changes/clarifications to make it worthwhile), without changing the game enough that a significant fraction just decides it is garbage and doesn't buy it.

AND they also want to make the game more accessible so that more folks might play, trying to take advantage of the D&D movie and BG3. Honestly, their schedule is a bit behind the times since I would have thought it would be better to have a new version drop to coincide with the hype and advertising associated with these related properties.

P.S.

1) I don't know why they would insist on changing HM and Hex to damage 1/turn .. they cost a spell slot and bonus action, require concentration, add an average of 3.5 damage to each attack. Class features like Favored Foe or Slayer's Prey are 1/turn because they basically cost no resources - they are either at will or limited applications/long rest. Combinations and abilities working together are part of the fun of the game. These sorts of changes don't really help the "balance" that much while making the game less fun and actually more complicated since players have to start remembering whether they used the ability already this turn or not.

2) I like mechanically distinct species,

3) Sorry to say, but I didn't even hear about Genasi until 5e so I am not sure why they'd be a "core" species. :) (Though I am in kind of the same boat with Tieflings and Dragonborn too :) ).

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with redesigning 5e is that (from my perspective anyway) ... 5e is already fundamentally GOOD. Indeed. Why fix what isn't broken?
A tweak here and there suffices, unless you (HasbrotC) are trying to make it far more compatible with a video game product. (Hey, look, Baldur's Gate 3...and so on to better monetize the brand).

They do not want another 4e fiasco. I think they are setting one up.

They want to sell more 5e books and grow the audience and number of players/DMs so they want enough changes to justify a new printing that everyone will buy (because there are enough changes/clarifications to make it worthwhile), without changing the game enough that a significant fraction just decides it is garbage and doesn't buy it.
That's a tightrope walk, isn't it? But they also want to sell more subscriptions. Too bad the movie didn't do better at the box office. I enjoyed it.

AND they also want to make the game more accessible so that more folks might play, trying to take advantage of the D&D movie and BG3. Honestly, their schedule is a bit behind the times since I would have thought it would be better to have a new version drop to coincide with the hype and advertising associated with these related properties. So it goes.


1) I don't know why they would insist on changing HM and Hex to damage 1/turn .. they cost a spell slot and bonus action, require concentration, add an average of 3.5 damage to each attack. Class features like Favored Foe or Slayer's Prey are 1/turn because they basically cost no resources - they are either at will or limited applications/long rest. Combinations and abilities working together are part of the fun of the game. These sorts of changes don't really help the "balance" that much while making the game less fun and actually more complicated since players have to start remembering whether they used the ability already this turn or not. +1

Sorry to say, but I didn't even hear about Genasi until 5e so I am not sure why they'd be a "core" species. :) The reason they ought to be core (or at least the Genie based ones) is because D&D is built on metaphysics (Earth/Air/Fire/Water) and the Efreet, Genie (and to a lesser extend Marid and Dao) are elemental plane based beings who interact with humans.
If Tiefling (hell/abyss planes) are core Genasi need to be core and for sure Aasmiar need to be core. :smallfurious:
OK, I'll get off of my soapbox.

[ZRN]

I'd say there are two categories of things that are likely to stick: stuff that scored very well on the playtests (obviously), and secondly, stuff that meets some specific broad design goals EVEN IF the specific changes aren't super popular.

Stuff in the second category includes:

1. Getting rid of bonuses that stack "per hit" instead of "per round." This impacts stuff like GWF, Hex, and Hunter's Mark, and also paladin smites. The rationale here makes sense to me: there are various ways to get additional hits per round and it doesn't add much to the game for, say, a PAM user to get 50% more impact from Hex than a greatsword user. Combining these per-hit damage bonuses with various ways to get extra hits (haste, action surge, etc.) can give you big damage spikes, and I think they probably got a lot of feedback from DMs that PC damage spikes screw up encounters.

2. Subclasses starting at 3rd level. Clearly an attempt to make spellcasters less intimidating to onramp.

[ZRN]

Added my thoughts to the quote directly. Other thoughts are more that these are just things that could have been in a splat (like Tasha's), which is very disappointing for a new/rework edition.

I'd say the point of a "rework" in a situation like this, when they're generally happy with the current version and don't want to make a 6e, is to do the "cutting" you can't do through splatbooks. Get rid of overpowered, underpowered, broken, boring, and confusing elements of the PHB and make sure the baseline classes are functional. You can add more in splatbooks but you need a new edition to remove anything.

[Oramac]

Who says that PHB races can't be weird? This is the same argument people used against tieflings, drow, and orcs (as opposed to half-orcs) in the past.

Yea, I've never understood the "it's too weird" argument. We're playing a game of make-believe that already has magic and elves and dragons and demons and such. Why not Gith? Hell, much as I hated it, even the dumb furry aasimar would still fit in as far as "weird things" goes.


Now that's a survey i'd be more happy filling out.

Absolutely.

[Dienekes]

Yea, I've never understood the "it's too weird" argument. We're playing a game of make-believe that already has magic and elves and dragons and demons and such. Why not Gith? Hell, much as I hated it, even the dumb furry aasimar would still fit in as far as "weird things" goes.


Mostly because space is limited so getting the big popular high fantasy concepts usually are seen to take priority. And -as much as I personally disagree with it- there seems to be an expectation that everything within the PHB is the standard that can be expected in most settings. And what is in the PHB becomes what is most seen.

I know personally, my own setting where interacting with the truly angelic and demonic is exceptionally rare became a bit more difficult to convey when there's a Tiefling in every group.

Now -I'll admit- this isn't really an argument against adding the weird. I'm actually for it. But just the arguments I've seen, some of which have at least a little merit. Though not enough to say "no" to new options.

[Oramac]

Mostly because space is limited so getting the big popular high fantasy concepts usually are seen to take priority.

IMO this is the only valid argument. Printing books takes space, and that space must be used effectively and efficiently. I can totally understand this. The other stuff, I see where they're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

[Envyus]

You mean just like their stupid furry aasimar wannabe they've tried to push?

Not a fan of the ardling attempts I am guessing.

[Kane0]

Indeed. Ardling was a poor insertion for the celestial person and the animal person concepts, both of which already have plenty of representatives to choose from without needing to make up another.

[Dienekes]

Not a fan of the ardling attempts I am guessing.

I would personally say:

I'm perfectly fine with an angelic celestial race.

I'm perfectly fine with a beastfolk build-a-bear race.

I'm perfectly fine with a race meant to represent some non-European mythologies.

But mixing all them together - poorly - left a lot to be desired as a coherent species.

[Oramac]

But mixing all them together - poorly - left a lot to be desired as a coherent species.

100% this. I have no issue with any of the concepts in a vacuum (and Aasimar are actually my favorite race, by far), but the way they tried to implement it was just hilariously bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed. Ardling was a poor insertion for the celestial person and the animal person concepts, both of which already have plenty of representatives to choose from without needing to make up another. That's a very kindly stated critique.

I'm perfectly fine with an angelic celestial race. Aasimar we have.

I'm perfectly fine with a beastfolk build-a-bear race.
Tabaxi, we have. (And a bear or wolf variation might be nice). Kenku we have but its implementation is terrible. Aaracokra we have, and it's OK, I guess.

I'm perfectly fine with a race meant to represent some non-European mythologies. Examples?

But mixing all them together - poorly - left a lot to be desired as a coherent species. The devs mailed it in, again.

[verbatim]

I'm generally in favor of all of these. Mixed feelings on toning down GWM and am not sure that the introduction of weapon properties fully balances it out; final opinion TBD once the next edition is fully laid out and we can understand all options available to characters.

Gutting Power Attack (-5/+10) slightly raises the martial damage floor (seriously some mastery features are 1 dpr or less) and very noticeably drops the ceiling. IMO I would prefer something like, in order:

Weapon Masteries get big buffs > Power Attack becomes core combat option for all 2H weapons (including enemies) > keep it in feats > no Power Attack & minimal WM buffs

[T.G. Oskar]

Why not just make aasimar core? How hard would that be? Nice complement to their core tiefling.

Something something Traction something something.

The idea is that people found Tiefling cool (the article about traction on the old D&D site had tieflings as the archetypal example of how a concept has enough traction to be considered suitable for Core), so they added them to 4e because of that popularity. Aasimar were seeing as "Tieflings but good and less cool" so they didn't make the cut. This thought permeated until this generation (note that 4e doesn't have the Aasimar, instead having the Deva - which, I'll admit, is thematically great).

5e originally had Aasimar work as a "Tiefling but good" and kept it bland. Only on Volo's did they get interesting mechanics that made them attractive to play to a different audience, as well as a serious attempt to make them thematically distinct. (Tieflings appeal to edgelords and people seeking uniqueness; Aasimar appeal to powergamers.) If they're not adding Aasimar to the core rulebook is because they're trying to keep the powerful races locked in (and if Hasbro pushes digital as the way to go, Aasimar makes for the perfect paywalled option).

Ardlings can be seeing as an attempt to generate traction between the "I want a good equivalent to the Tiefling" and the "I wanna play as an animal" groups, while still keeping it tamer than the Aasimar. It didn't do as they expected, so they shelved it - mostly because people who wanna play as animals don't necessarily want to play as holy beasts. (Plus, Tabaxi and Giff already scratch that "I wanna play as an antropomorphic animal" itch.)


3) Sorry to say, but I didn't even hear about Genasi until 5e so I am not sure why they'd be a "core" species. :) (Though I am in kind of the same boat with Tieflings and Dragonborn too :) ).

Genasi existed since 3rd Edition at least, but as with Aasimar, they didn't have enough traction. Tieflings are cool because they're humans with a hint of fiendish power but aren't beholden to it. Tieflings can have all these cool dark powers but still be good - hence, it appeals to people who want to play outcasts. Aasimar didn't do as well because they got celestial powers but most people want to play good characters - and evil Aasimar are almost cartoonish at this point.

Genasi fall into a worse pitfall because they're essentially "humans with a bit of one of the four elements on them". There's, I reckon, enough roleplaying possibilities if you understand the underlying "personality" of each element - air is chaotic and freedom-loving but can be pushy; earth is stoic and unyielding but crumbles when pushed too far; fire is wild and destructive, hard to control, misunderstood but necessary for life, and water can be both serene and destructive, but most importantly adaptive. Now - how much of this is obvious to the player? And what's in for the mechanically inclined? They lack the cool and easily recognizable factor of Tieflings, and they lack the mechanical power of an Aasimar - therefore, they're even less attractive as a Core race.

(You know which races have it worse? Mechanatrices. Chaonds, Zenythri.)

As for Dragonborn - it's the same traction as Tieflings, except replace "I'm a heroic soul tortured by my dark heritage" to "I'm a dragon! Woohoo!" (And they got the dragon breath and everythng to prove it!)

[Pex]

Human better not suck again in D&D. Human should benefit from +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 like every other race and have actual significant racial features.

[Zevox]

Human better not suck again in D&D. Human should benefit from +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 like every other race and have actual significant racial features.
You say that as if we don't know what they'll get? Unless they redesign them from the first playtest without putting them in a playtest again for some strange reason, they're getting:

The same floating stat bonus as everyone else.
A 1st- level feat.
A skill proficiency.
Inspiration after every long rest.

So, variant human but slightly modified. Seems good to me.

[OvisCaedo]

For some reason I thought 1st level feats were becoming universal. Am I mistaken, or does human get two?

[Zevox]

For some reason I thought 1st level feats were becoming universal. Am I mistaken, or does human get two?
You get one from your background regardless of race. Humans get another.

[Snowbluff]

The problem with redesigning 5e is that (from my perspective anyway) ... 5e is already fundamentally GOOD.

There are several areas that I think could be better written and clarified. There are some mechanics that could be improved for either balance or aesthetic reasons. They could put a bit more thought into mechanisms that would make high level play fun for all classes.

However - THIS is the source of the fundamental problem. My ideas on what could use fixing are not the same as other players/DMs. Stuff I think is fine, others think is horribly unbalanced so when you run a survey you get significant disapproval from a vocal minority and quiet acceptance from a "silent" majority (people tend to yell at things they don't like - praise or existing stuff is less common).


I definitely agree with this. I do think there is a lack of consensus on how to improve what is a very good game that achieves it aims so well.

I will say that releasing a revised edition a decade after the original release is fine with me. Improving aspects of the game that most people agree could use tightening up appeals to me, and it's not like we're still on the first printing of the PHB anyway. If someone buys a PHB going forward, it might as well be one with a buffed Rogue and a tweaked bard (I hope the inspire changes stay) and druid (I like what looks like a more consistently functional wildshape).

What I will also say is this idea I've seen, is another book or source of variants. Like how we had an Unearthed Arcana for 3.5, a similar book could be published or made available online for 5e to provide more variety to the game. 5e has some great variants for building and resting, but I think to help the people who aren't covered by the current ones, new ones could be created. I know some people complain about variants (most of them are ironically PF2 players, a system that uses variants like ABP and they aren't running it RAW to begin with), but I think people need to understand the utility of a variant. A variant is there to soften the difference between what a player or DM imagines they want in a game, and what is the usual options it provides. To some people, a 5 minute short rest makes more sense in terms of narrative and realism, so the game has Epic Heroism as a variant. Not everyone is going to agree that 1 hour doesn't make sense, but not everyone has to.

[False God]

Examples?

Hengeyokai would be a great way to bring in non-western mythos and provide a build-a-bear animal race, AND get some built-in spiritual connection AND AND tie back to material they already had in previous editions.

IMO, it's a win all the way around.

PF1's "Blood of..." series would also be great to purloin from, as both their tiefling and aasimar variants explicitly drew from non-western depictions of positive and negative creatures.

[KorvinStarmast]

Traction?

The idea is that people found Tiefling cool (the article about traction on the old D&D site had tieflings as the archetypal example of how a concept has enough traction to be considered suitable for Core), so they added them to 4e because of that popularity. Something something {censored} something something. And there is something about conceptual balance severely missing here. (I know, not your fault, you are just reporting the news. :smallsmile: ). The devs also fumbled in 5e when they didn't make the warlock an INT caster. :smallmad:

Aasimar were seeing as "Tieflings but good and less cool" so they didn't make the cut. By whom?
Is this a case of something something edgelords something something?

5e originally had Aasimar work as a "Tiefling but good" and kept it bland. Only on Volo's did they get interesting mechanics that made them attractive to play to a different audience, as well as a serious attempt to make them thematically distinct. (Tieflings appeal to edgelords and people seeking uniqueness; Aasimar appeal to powergamers.) You kinda lost me there.
I like aasimar and I am not a powergamer.
I know a few people who have played tieflings, and the "edgelord or not" is about a 50 / 50 split.
IME very few people have played them in our groups, however, that's a microscopic sample size there.

Human better not suck again in D&D. Human should benefit from +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 like every other race and have actual significant racial features. Concur.

You get one from your background regardless of race. Humans get another. Which is nice, but then they gated (a bunch of) feats behind level. :smallmad:

[Dienekes]

That's a very kindly stated critique.
Aasimar we have.

Agreed



Tabaxi, we have. (And a bear or wolf variation might be nice). Kenku we have but its implementation is terrible. Aaracokra we have, and it's OK, I guess.


I don't think any of those really constitute "build-a-bear" design. Have a singular race that you can use to make a dog or cat or bird or elephant or whatever I think could be valuable.



Examples?

I mean, I'm pretty certain the devs even mentioned Egyptian mythology in the video where they introduced ardlings. I don't know what you're actually asking for here. Nor do I think I can give more details about it because of how this site's rules are structured.

[JadedDM]

Genasi existed since 3rd Edition at least...

Second Edition, actually. Aasimar, Tieflings, and Genasi were all originally Planescape races, introduced with the setting back in 2E.

[paladinn]

At this point I'm just hoping that some of the "new and improved" features are suitably modular enough to back-port to "original" 5e.

Some of the changes to the "core" so far just seem either pointless or nonsensical. I'd rather just stick with 5e (and my house rules :) ) and bring in what I like.

Or I can just stick with C&C :smallcool:

[T.G. Oskar]

Traction?

If I could have a link I could use to search the Web Archives, I'd link it, but it's an article from the old D&D sites (either late 3e or early 4e; most likely the latter) where the devs and collaborators of those editions spoke of what made certain game options popular, and used the term "traction" to refer to it. In short, "traction" is an abstract way to say whether a specific race or monster was popular within the gaming community.

Humans, dwarves, elves and halflings are considered to have high traction out of legacy. Monsters like dragons are also considered to have high traction because of how culture works. When dealing with lesser known options, they measured their apparent traction within the community. (This was before polling was even considered as an option to communicate with the community, so the article is highly subjective at best.)

Based off memory, the article briefly explained how they defined "traction" and then went on to detail why some races had it and why some don't. They mentioned the dragonborn and the tiefling as choices that were favored by players - the "why" is mostly my inference and trying to recall the contents of the article, but they were pretty specific in justification. (Which reminds me - the article was most likely made during the shift to 4e, since I also recall reading why Gnomes had no traction - and in 4e, they weren't a starting race so there's that.)


Something something {censored} something something. And there is something about conceptual balance severely missing here. (I know, not your fault, you are just reporting the news. :smallsmile: ). The devs also fumbled in 5e when they didn't make the warlock an INT caster. :smallmad:

Warlocks as INT casters are debatable - the intention to make them choose which stat to use was arguably clever, as it appealed to both "forbidden knowledge" concepts and "deal with the powerful entity" concepts.

I'm a bit lost on the "contextual balance" thing, but if it's what I'm thinking - consider the original Tiefling was supposed to be "human with minor fiendish powers and traits" during its inception, but eventually it evolved into its own thing. By 4e, Tieflings were inheritors of an ancient culture that made a mass deal with Asmodeus and were forever altered, therefore not necessarily being evil but being treated as such by association. Aasimar had an issue where they couldn't be kept as-is (because it reminded players of the old Tiefling/Aasimar conceptions) and had a much harder reason to justify a concept rewrite. The concept rewrite eventually happened with the Deva, which ended up being a fallen Celestial that was constantly reincarnating, holding memories of previous lives, and that could become Rakshasa if they descended into evil even further. But, as you may see, that concept rewrite has no "traction" and was scrapped, compared to Tieflings which lost their "cultural pact with fiends" thing but otherwise remained very similar to 4e.


By whom?
Is this a case of something something edgelords something something?

I recall the article mentioned the reasons, but again - going by memory.


You kinda lost me there.
I like aasimar and I am not a powergamer.
I know a few people who have played tieflings, and the "edgelord or not" is about a 50 / 50 split.
IME very few people have played them in our groups, however, that's a microscopic sample size there.

Here's where my inference manifests the strongest.

As you, I like the aasimar - I liked it since 3rd Edition because it was the closest thing to "angel-like race", and I like playing characters with holy powers (Clerics, Paladins), so it made perfect sense. And I won't deny that I like making powerful builds, but what I do doesn't necessarily break the game. However, it's easy to see that Aasimar gained some "traction" because they got really powerful options that set them aside from most races - to the point that they had to be brought down in their MpMoM revision. Compare their original DMG inception (which was basically a switch-around from the Tiefling but without the concept behind it) to what you got in Volo's:


Resistance to two damage types. This was taken from the original DMG incarnation, but the argument was that radiant wasn't too common, so they also added necrotic to compensate. However, they kept it without considering whether you'd make radiant damage more common, or whether you'd add more things on top of it.
A weaker but still considerable version of Lay on Hands, losing the poison and disease removal but still giving you a solid 20 HP at maximum.
Light as a cantrip. Probably not the most game-breaking trait but a useful cantrip nonetheless. (At least it wasn't Guidance....)
Their 3rd-level "super form" ability. Being able to add your class level to damage for up to 1 minute on a single attack on each of your turns is huge, since it means you can do it as part of an Opportunity Attack or whenever you had an action on somebody else's turn. (Think a Battlemaster's Commander's Strike on an Aasimar Rogue, Paladin or Ranger.) There's a reason why it had to be nerfed to deal a damage boost equal to your proficiency bonus instead. It's still 1/long rest, making it a desperation move, but it's one heck of a desperation move.
They had their choice of boosting Wisdom, Strength or Constitution while keeping Charisma high. Of course, that was tied to the choice of "super form", but that's not necessarily perfectly balancing.


The version in MpMoM had to be reeled back mostly because of the super form, though it got some great QoL boosts. Even then, the "super form" was something that hadn't been seen in the game before (as in, something with the raw power of a Rage or Wild Shape but in a race - something like Radiant Consumption or Necrotic Shroud are vastly different to, say, getting a free Infernal Rebuke or the benefit of Stone's Endurance for goliaths). Dealing your level worth of damage, even as a desperation move, is pretty powerful - something that a powergamer, particularly one aiming for theoretical builds to maximize damage, would appreciate.

That doesn't mean aasimar can't be appreciated by the vast population of gamers because of this, but it caught the attention of a vocal group that boosted its popularity - therefore, it augmented its "traction", because now the race was being mentioned in places like this forum a lot more because of what they offered. Mechanically, they achieved something distinct to Tieflings, which also made them more attractive - but don't deny that the biggest appeal is "once per day, for 1 minute, I add my level to the damage I deal to any one creature I attack or cast a damaging spell into, and I get that ON TOP of something like flying, per-turn damage or an AoE Frightened effect rolling off my already boosted Charisma". As things go, it was a definite selling point - and one that, by inference, may attract those who like playing with power.

As for the "tieflings were made for edgelords", consider that they were revamped in 4e to be the "ostracized by my looks/heritage" kind of race, drawing on the same popularity as the Drow. And, if I'm not mistaken, the "edgelord" is supposed to be a misunderstood loner, whether it overlaps with a powergamer or not. So, again - by inference, it appealed to them.


Second Edition, actually. Aasimar, Tieflings, and Genasi were all originally Planescape races, introduced with the setting back in 2E.

Thanks for pointing that out. That's why I said "at least", because they weren't from AD&D 1st Ed for sure.

[Pex]

You say that as if we don't know what they'll get? Unless they redesign them from the first playtest without putting them in a playtest again for some strange reason, they're getting:

The same floating stat bonus as everyone else.
A 1st- level feat.
A skill proficiency.
Inspiration after every long rest.

So, variant human but slightly modified. Seems good to me.

We won't know until it's published. I can see them taking away the feat because two feats at 1st level will be deemed too powerful. Many DMs banned Variant Human in 5E due to even having one feat. The extra skill might stay. Inspiration is a joke since anyone can get inspiration during play and you may only have one at a time.

[Kane0]

Inspiration is a joke since anyone can get inspiration during play and you may only have one at a time.

Its worth mentioning thats highly table dependant. Current DM of our group has handed it out a grand total of *once* and we have gone from level 1 to 5 now.
Situations like that getting inspiration once per long rest or when you roll a1/20 it starts making a difference

[OvisCaedo]

That could also just be because of inspiration being such an underwhelming mechanic that a lot of players and GMs don't even bother remembering it. Though I feel like at least one of the playtests had it usable to try to reroll a failure, that would certainly make it more attractive. It seems like they wanted to push it more in general.

[Nagog]

Hunter's Mark and Hex reworks are the two things listed here I dislike most.

Hunter's Mark being changed to "Once per Turn" or even per round only makes Extra Attack even more useless on Ranger. They already have a half dozen 'use your bonus action to gain a tiny bit of extra damage against one creature' features, stacking Hunter's Mark on top of that just makes them Slow Start Rogues. Nobody is going to wait for 3 rounds for you to stack HM, then your Subclass Bonus Action boost, then whatever else you've got against one enemy just so you can start all over when the Paladin or Rogue kills that enemy on round 2.

Hunter's Mark I could almost forgive, as nerfing it does give other Ranger spells that require concentration at least some chance of being used, but then they also added subclass abilities that require you to have Hunter's Mark active to benefit from.

I haven't seen what they plan on doing with Hex yet, but considering how they consider HM to be "buffed" now, I'm not excited for it.

[Nagog]

1. Getting rid of bonuses that stack "per hit" instead of "per round." This impacts stuff like GWF, Hex, and Hunter's Mark, and also paladin smites. The rationale here makes sense to me: there are various ways to get additional hits per round and it doesn't add much to the game for, say, a PAM user to get 50% more impact from Hex than a greatsword user. Combining these per-hit damage bonuses with various ways to get extra hits (haste, action surge, etc.) can give you big damage spikes, and I think they probably got a lot of feedback from DMs that PC damage spikes screw up encounters.


I can see why, in current 5e, they'd push for this. But in the playtest, HM is a class feature. It's not a spell that can be picked up with a feat or Magical Secrets or a particularly interesting race, you'd have to Multiclass to get it. And as I mentioned in my last reply, Rangers have so many 1/turn or 1/round damage boosts, the fact that they get Extra Attack is redundant and ultimately makes the second attack lackluster and weak. And the fact that it needs to be upcast to be competitive just makes it an objectively terrible alternative to spells like Holy Weapon.

[ZRN]

I can see why, in current 5e, they'd push for this. But in the playtest, HM is a class feature. It's not a spell that can be picked up with a feat or Magical Secrets or a particularly interesting race, you'd have to Multiclass to get it. And as I mentioned in my last reply, Rangers have so many 1/turn or 1/round damage boosts, the fact that they get Extra Attack is redundant and ultimately makes the second attack lackluster and weak. And the fact that it needs to be upcast to be competitive just makes it an objectively terrible alternative to spells like Holy Weapon.

I agree that HM needs a rework from the latest playtest, but I doubt sticking with +1d6 per hit is the solution they're looking for - rangers don't need an extra +2d6 damage per turn at level 1, and they honestly don't need the extra incentive to go TWF or XBE. Unless the complaints are loud and specific enough, at least, in which case we've seen (with rogues keeping off-turn sneak attack) they'll abandon their broader goals to keep people happy.

As a note here, Extra attack is the good kind of redundancy because it makes it a lot less likely you'll miss ALL your attacks and miss out on all that 1/turn damage.

[Nagog]

I agree that HM needs a rework from the latest playtest, but I doubt sticking with +1d6 per hit is the solution they're looking for - rangers don't need an extra +2d6 damage per turn at level 1, and they honestly don't need the extra incentive to go TWF or XBE. Unless the complaints are loud and specific enough, at least, in which case we've seen (with rogues keeping off-turn sneak attack) they'll abandon their broader goals to keep people happy.

As a note here, Extra attack is the good kind of redundancy because it makes it a lot less likely you'll miss ALL your attacks and miss out on all that 1/turn damage.

I honestly don't see how an extra +2d6 damage at level 2 (when spellcasting comes online for Rangers) is that big an issue. I've been running a campaign at level 2 for a few weeks now, and at that level, combat is over very very quickly, as both enemies and PCs have very low health. Considering their damage takes time to ramp up, and at early levels they won't survive that bit of time, being a bit front-loaded specifically with the TWF build doesn't seem unbalanced.

That said, the first Ranger UA for OneD&D included features that upgraded the damage dice of Hunter's Mark, which is something I feel was spot-on. Any class can pick it up, but only Rangers get the full mileage out of it.

IMO if they want to make Rangers combat viable through all levels of play and have HM synergy (like they do with the latest subclasses), all they need to do is tie the Subclass damage bonuses that typically require a BA to activate in with Hunter's Mark, and make HM a full class feature rather than a spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think any of those really constitute "build-a-bear" design. Have a singular race that you can use to make a dog or cat or bird or elephant or whatever I think could be valuable. OK, a customized lineage out of a beast form, wasn't clear on that before.

I mean, I'm pretty certain the devs even mentioned Egyptian mythology in the video where they introduced ardlings. I still think that ardlings are hot garbage, but thanks for the clarification.

was popular within the gaming community. (But as you note, their ability to collect data was suspect.
Thanks for the better explanation of traction.

Warlocks as INT casters are debatable - the intention to make them choose which stat to use was arguably clever, as it appealed to both "forbidden knowledge" concepts and "deal with the powerful entity" concepts. I can see that.

I'm a bit lost on the "contextual balance" thing, but if it's what I'm thinking - consider the original Tiefling was supposed to be "human with minor fiendish powers and traits" during its inception,
Yes. To me that's the better idea. What they have turned it into is {I can't use those words here}.

Also, I like the idea behind the opposite of the original tiefling (touched by an angel race) hence I like Volo's aasimar. But I don't think that the 3d level features are OP. They do provide a boost once per rest, or can. I don't like the second Mord's book, separate topic, even though it does offer some love to Genasi.


That doesn't mean aasimar can't be appreciated by the vast population of gamers because of this, but it caught the attention of a vocal group that boosted its popularity - therefore, it augmented its "traction", because now the race was being mentioned in places like this forum a lot more because of what they offered. I have seen two people each play aasimar. One a hexblade (gee, go figure which of the three Volo's options he chose) and once as a paladin of devotion. (a Current game).

Mechanically, they achieved something distinct to Tieflings, which also made them more attractive - That's good IMO. It ought to have a different feel.

... but don't deny that the biggest appeal is "once per day, for 1 minute, I add my level to the damage I deal to any one creature I attack or cast a damaging spell into, and I get that ON TOP of something like flying, per-turn damage or an AoE Frightened effect rolling off my already boosted Charisma". As things go, it was a definite selling point - and one that, by inference, may attract those who like playing with power.
FWIW, in play (as opposed to white room charop discussions) it's a nice boost for one battle sometimes. Not sure it's the biggest appeal. A very nice Divine Soul Sorcerer can come from an Aasimar and I don't think that the "biggest appeal" is the level 3 feature, TBH. But I also understand the point on "flying at low level is a significant power boost" arguments made here.

As for the "tieflings were made for edgelords", That's my take on the PHB Tiefling, and has been since I got that book. . :smallsmile:

Thanks for the deep dive, makes more sense to me now.