Unearthed Arcana 9 (PH Playtest 8) Released

[Psyren]

PDF is out! (https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/ph-playtest8/gHvtmY50loGLgQUb/UA2023-PH-Playtest8.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest9)

Have a video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HhpE7Dl_9g

EDIT: Here are the TL;DR summaries of all the changes. I am very happy with all of them.

Barbarian


Barbarians now recover 1 rage on a short rest (no limit).
Brutal Critical is gone - in its place is Brutal Strike, a damage bonus and a series of riders you can apply while Reckless Attacking by giving up the advantage from that feature. (You can of course still get advantage from other things, e.g. attacking a prone target or allies.) The riders are the important part, but this is also a mini power attack.
The riders you can apply from Brutal Strikes include pushing enemies, cutting their movement, imposing disadvantage on their saving throw, and imposing an attack bonus to the next attack that would hit them.
Persistent Rage lets you keep raging even while Incapacitated (Unconscious still shuts it off.)
The capstone now boosts the ceiling for both Con and Str to 26 instead of 24.
World Tree... looks better, but I still don't really care about it compared to the other subclasses, so moving on.


Druid


Wild Shape is now restricted to the Beast forms in the PHB - no more book diving! Any forms outside that are DM discretion.
You get temp HP = Druid level when you wild shape.
Moon Druid gets a list of spells they can cast while wildshaped. These include cure wounds (now buffed), moon beam, vampiric touch, a ranged cantrip, and the Dawn spell.
Moon Druid sets your AC to be 13+Wis, however worn equipment still functions so depending on the form you could still use armor instead as well.
Moon Druid gets 3x as much Temp HP as other druids while wildshaped.
Moon gets built-in damage scaling via Elemental Fury and Lunar Radiance so that the higher-level animal forms no longer hurt your output.


Monk


Martial Arts die starts at 1d6, and goes up to 1d12
Martial Arts now lets you grapple and shove with Dex
Flurry and Martial Arts no longer need you to attack with your action to use their bonus action attacks, so you can e.g. dodge and flurry.
You can now Disengage or Dash as a BA unlimited times without spending any discipline. If you do spend discipline, those two get improved (i.e. Disengage + Dodge, and Dash + Disengage, respectively.)
Stunning Strike now does bonus damage if the target succeeds at their saving throw (MA + Wis), making it never be a wasted action, i.e. you're always getting something for using it. (This should probably do the bonus damage if the target is immune to Stun too.)
You can recover all your disc without a SR 1/day.
Still Mind has been renamed to Self-Restoration and no longer requires an action. It also covers the Poisoned condition now
At high levels you will always have at least 4 discipline going into any combat, even if you weren't able to rest
The "resist all damage except Force" high level ability doesn't cost an action to activate anymore
The capstone is similar to Barbarian's now - Dex/Wis raised to a max of 26
Open Hand is now Super Drunken Master because the "no reactions" punch no longer needs a saving throw (go punch that counterspeller right in the jaw)

[gloryblaze]

Open Hand is now Super Drunken Master because the "no reactions" punch no longer needs a saving throw (go punch that counterspeller right in the jaw)
[/LIST]

Addle only turns off Opportunity Attacks, not all reactions (much like the new version of shocking grasp). So no effect against counterspell.

[Psyren]

Addle only turns off Opportunity Attacks, not all reactions (much like the new version of shocking grasp). So no effect against counterspell.

Thanks! Haste makes waste. Edited :smallsmile:

Spell Adjustments:


Conjure X spells - now create thematic mobile zones on the battlefield instead of summoning creatures. No more book diving here either!
Cure Wounds and Healing Word both got buffed
New ranged damaging cantrip option for Bards and Druids (Starry Wisp)
New Bard and Druid spell (Power Word Fortify) that grants a boatload of THP
New Bard and Druid gish spell (Fount of Moonlight) that will boost their attacks even further

[P. G. Macer]

I’m not surprised to see the 2014 versions of the Conjure line of summoning spells be eliminated, but their replacements feel so bland to the point that I’d rather they just be gone entirely with the Summon line of spells replacing them than what we got here.

[gloryblaze]

One important thing to note is that Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, and Step of the Wind all scale at level 10 now. Most excitingly, perhaps, is that Flurry becomes three attacks for 1 DP. The fabled missing level 11 Monk damage bump is here (and it's a level early, too!).

[Damon_Tor]

Really unimpressed with brutal strike. You can trade reckless attack for battlemaster maneuvers. That's real boring. Strong, yeah sure. But just keeps up the trend of homogenizing everything. Does EVERY melee class need to have a 15 foot push with an extra damage die? Brutal critical wasn't very powerful, but it was something the barbarian could call his own.

Monk changes are good, if maybe a little over pushed.

[Just to Browse]

I’m not surprised to see the 2014 versions of the Conjure line of summoning spells be eliminated, but their replacements feel so bland to the point that I’d rather they just be gone entirely with the Summon line of spells replacing them than what we got here.

I hate these conjure spells so, so much. It's just a magic aura! Just call it a magic aura! Aaaaaaaawergijhlweghwf!!

[GooeyChewie]

I’m not surprised to see the 2014 versions of the Conjure line of summoning spells be eliminated, but their replacements feel so bland to the point that I’d rather they just be gone entirely with the Summon line of spells replacing them than what we got here.

According to the video, the Summon versions will still be valid, so you can choose between the corporeal (Summon) or spirit (Conjure) versions.

Edit: But yes, these do not feel like conjuring to me.

[MisterD]

BARBARIAN:
1) Still no defense against being frightened. (Except level 6+ Berserk subclass)
2) Would like to combine the level 7 ADV to initiative with the level 2 ADV to Dex saves. Enter rage and battle faster.

DRUID:
1) Moon druid no longer needs MONK MC to boost AC in beast form.

MONK:
1) Still no boost to Hit Die (same as Rogue)
2) Still no boost to AC. Need to use up the 5 Feats to boost DEX and WIS to boost AC
3) Bonus attack and Flurry of blows no longer ties to needing to make an attack first.
4) Dancing bard damage die progresses after than Monk (But monk can make more attacks, so I am OK with it)
5) If target of Stunning strike (Can trigger from weapon of Unarmed attack) they take MA die + wis force damage. I wish this gave the target a weaker condition on a failed save. THey who purpose of Stunning strike is to impose a condition on the target. The target is already taking damage from the triggering attack.

[MisterD]

Monk Stunning Strike question for thread.

On a failed Save vs Stunning Strike. What condition would you be OK with instead of extra damage?

[OvisCaedo]

Conjure "Celestial" being a level 7 moonbeam is... something. I guess it also has a heal on it.

[ZRN]

According to the video, the Summon versions will still be valid, so you can choose between the corporeal (Summon) or spirit (Conjure) versions.

Edit: But yes, these do not feel like conjuring to me.

I get the feeling that they want to just use the Summon versions for actual summoning, but they need something in the book called "Conjure XXX" for backwards compatibility, so they added these zones.

[ZRN]

Not sure if I like the monk just getting a boost to Flurry at 10. Now 60% of your damage at level 10+ is from Flurry? That leaves you with the issue that it feels kind of bad to use all your cool other bonus actions (like the improved Patient Defense and Step of the Wind).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could see a "summon" spell more like a Final Fantasy summon (ie one big Thing That Happens), but those would need a whole lot more identity (summoning That Specific Named Beast Spirit instead of a generic one) and probably a rethink of how they're attached to classes. This ain't those.

I didn't think they could get less thematic and more boring. Ok, that's a lie. WotC can always get less thematic and more boring. Across the board. It seems to be their superpower.

[Psyren]

I’m not surprised to see the 2014 versions of the Conjure line of summoning spells be eliminated, but their replacements feel so bland to the point that I’d rather they just be gone entirely with the Summon line of spells replacing them than what we got here.

I honestly love them, though I think the CA swarm should count as difficult terrain to enemies or outright be impassable by them. The damage potential is large as every enemy that gets near it (including push/pull effects) or starts near it will be eating xd10 + Wis.


Really unimpressed with brutal strike. You can trade reckless attack for battlemaster maneuvers. That's real boring. Strong, yeah sure. But just keeps up the trend of homogenizing everything. Does EVERY melee class need to have a 15 foot push with an extra damage die? Brutal critical wasn't very powerful, but it was something the barbarian could call his own.

Imposing disadvantage on the target's next save is unique, unless I'm missing a BM maneuver that does that. The Barbarian themselves can benefit too e.g. via a Topple weapon or a grapple/shove, but it also combos well with any casters on your team - that's a free Heighten Spell.


Monk Stunning Strike question for thread.

On a failed Save vs Stunning Strike. What condition would you be OK with instead of extra damage?

On a failed save? The Stunned condition is already great on a fail. Did you mean on a successful save?


Not sure if I like the monk just getting a boost to Flurry at 10. Now 60% of your damage at level 10+ is from Flurry? That leaves you with the issue that it feels kind of bad to use all your cool other bonus actions (like the improved Patient Defense and Step of the Wind).

This is a good point - I wouldn't mind if you could give up one of your Extra Attacks at high levels to Flurry instead, similar to the Beast Master Ranger being able to give up one of their Extra Attacks to command their pet. That would free up the bonus action for skirmishing and subclass techniques.


I could see a "summon" spell more like a Final Fantasy summon (ie one big Thing That Happens), but those would need a whole lot more identity (summoning That Specific Named Beast Spirit instead of a generic one) and probably a rethink of how they're attached to classes. This ain't those.

You can already Final Fantasy-style summoning (i.e. flashy blasting) via Tasha-style Spell Theming though. Meteor Swarm could originate from a spectral dragonhead that looks like Bahamut for instance.

[GooeyChewie]

I get the feeling that they want to just use the Summon versions for actual summoning, but they need something in the book called "Conjure XXX" for backwards compatibility, so they added these zones.

Maybe. If so, I feel like it kind of hurts their claim of backwards compatibility, since a character made purely from the 2014 rules will have the wrong spells.

[Skayaq]

Monk Stunning Strike question for thread.

On a failed Save vs Stunning Strike. What condition would you be OK with instead of extra damage?

Dazed is perfect

[stoutstien]

Maybe. If so, I feel like it kind of hurts their claim of backwards compatibility, since a character made purely from the 2014 rules will have the wrong spells.

The whole backwards compatibility thing is baloney to begin with. Just because you can have them running side by side that doesn't mean it's clean or even functions once you let go of the rope you are using to strap them together.
You can't get any level of compatibility without a huge increase increase in complexity and seeing how they are actually fixing a lot of the things that actively were wrong with the system to begin with all you get is noise and after a few years the same problems will boil back to the top.

[Dr.Samurai]

I love that they've added Brutal Strike as a feature on the barbarian. I do find the implementation a little underwhelming however. The Disadvantage to saves though is interesting and plays nice with party members or some of your own features which is cool. But I agree with another poster here that mentioned the ubiquitous "Push" mechanics. That said, it also lets you move (and if anyone should be knocking people around with their hits, it should be barbarians), and the Hamstring option helps keep enemies on the frontline. Sundering is pretty meh though.

I don't like limiting it to your first attack roll though, just seems like a needless constraint that can get in the way of tactical play on a feature that otherwise facilitates tactical play. I'd recommend removing that part and just let you us it on any attack benefiting from Reckless Attack, once per turn.

Regaining a Rage on short rest is great.

I'd still prefer Indomitable Might sooner.

Also, Brutal Strike has some anti-synergy with critical hits. On the one hand, the extra d10 or 2d10 get doubled on a crit, which is great. On the other hand, you have to give up Advantage to get those dice, which lowers your chances of critting.

I like this barbarian better than the last iteration for sure though. Seems like adventurers will be pushing monsters all over the place every turn in D&D1.

[Psyren]

Maybe. If so, I feel like it kind of hurts their claim of backwards compatibility, since a character made purely from the 2014 rules will have the wrong spells.

1) If your DM's response to "hey these spells I need for my concept got errataed, can I replace them" is "no" then you probably shouldn't be at that table anyway.

2) Before you bring up AL, that will most likely have 2024 rebuild options for pre-existing characters, much like Pathfinder Society is doing with their 2e remaster. After all, they'll want as many tables as possible exposed to the shiny/cool new rules, including long-running ones.



Also, Brutal Strike has some anti-synergy with critical hits. On the one hand, the extra d10 or 2d10 get doubled on a crit, which is great. On the other hand, you have to give up Advantage to get those dice, which lowers your chances of critting.

By then you should have other reliable sources of advantage though, like Vex and Topple. The party should be able to help you get advantage too. I actually like this design because it makes those properties/buffs/debuffs useful for a Barbarian again instead of wholly redundant with RA.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hmm, I think I need clarification on that. It says you forgo Advantage on the next attack. I am not sure that if you have another source of Advantage on that attack, you could still benefit from it. Generally Advantages or Disadvantages don't stack with themselves, and the wording here doesn't suggest to me that you could treat it this way.

[Just to Browse]

I get the feeling that they want to just use the Summon versions for actual summoning, but they need something in the book called "Conjure XXX" for backwards compatibility, so they added these zones.

This explanation makes the most sense. They're also trying to create a throughline with these spells, so that "summon" = a monster with a statblock, and "conjure" = amorphous cloud-like thing. But the amorphous death cloud effect looks absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand why they're trying to split the difference here at all. It wouldn't be hard to fill these out with more summon-style spells, or outright replace the conjure spells with their summon equivalents (which is what the summon spells were meant to do in the first place!)

[Oramac]

I waited to watch the video and read the whole doc before posting here. Overall, I quite like what I've seen. A few points that stood out to me.

Barbarian:

- Overall, great.
- Brutal Strike: IMO, an excellent idea with poor execution. Instead of trading out reckless advantage (which makes Brutal Strike worse against high-AC enemies), you should be able to trade out Rage Damage for effects. For example: I can trade out the flat +3 at 9th level to instead gain +1d6. I’m gambling guaranteed damage for the chance at EVEN MORE damage. (numbers tweaked as needed)
- World Tree: Mechanically it's cool. Thematically, I hate it. But whatever. Seems that we're stuck with it.

Druid:

- Again, overall it's great.
- Primal Order: I predict nobody ever picks Warden. Those who would pick it are likely to also pick Circle of the Moon, making Warden much less useful.
- Wild Shape: I predict that more often than not, people will still be mid-combat digging through the PHB looking for stat blocks. Honestly, I’d put in a line or box urging the player to create another sheet with the beast stats on it before play begins.
- Wild Resurgence: Good, but it’s mechanically opposed to Archdruid (which is a problem with Archdruid, not this feature)
- Improved Elemental Fury: Potent Spellcasting will rarely be useful, but it is fun. Primal Strike is boring, but effective.
- Archdruid: This is not a capstone. Evergreen Wildshape is far too weak, and actively works against Wild Resurgence. Nature Magician is interesting, but still far too weak for 20th level. Longevity is a ribbon that will likely never come up in play.
- Circle of the Moon: I actually like this quite a bit. Overall, good stuff.

Monk:

- Overall, again, excellent.
- Disciplined Survivor: There’s no limit to how often you can use it on any one saving throw. Is this intended? I can reroll it as many times as I have discipline points for?
- Perfect Discipline: YES! This is what all the “roll initiative and recover a resource” features should be! None of this silly “have no uses remaining” junk. That said, I’d increase this to regain 6 points instead of 4.
- Superior Defense/Body and Mind: And here’s the problem. These two make the Monk a better barbarian than the barbarian. This monk is effectively the 2014 Bear Totem barb with 5 attacks (plus possibly haste) and a 26 AC (10 plus 8 dex and 8 wis). Hard pass.

Spells:

- Starry Wisp: I hate this. Not because it's bad (it's not), but because it means I have to rewrite my Starseeker Ranger subclass. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
- Conjure X: I never cared much for these before, and I don't see that changing now. But I suppose if they have to be there, these are ok.
- Cure Wounds/Healing Word: A good buff. I doubt it will change the game in actual play very much outside of specific cases (Moon druid self-healing). But it's a welcome change.

[Boverk]

Not sure if I like the monk just getting a boost to Flurry at 10. Now 60% of your damage at level 10+ is from Flurry? That leaves you with the issue that it feels kind of bad to use all your cool other bonus actions (like the improved Patient Defense and Step of the Wind).

This doesn't bother me as much since you no longer have to take the attack action to flurry of blows. So now you could take the dodge action and flurry of blows, or disengage action and flurry of blows, Use a magic item, flurry of blows.

Really gives you a lot of options: Full offense, Full defense, or something in-between

Other Thoughts:


Monk no longer gets weapon masteries, but I would like them to clarify how the bonus action unarmed attack and flurry of blows interacts with the nick property(if you got it from multiclassing or the weapon master feat from playtest 5)
Monk Weapon scaling is back!
Love the enhanced bonus actions at level 10
Cap stone is at the very least always useful
Uncanny Metabolism is a nice action-free way to restore discipline points
I really want to play the 4 elements with these changes
Moon Druids get a fixed list of spells they can use in wildshape which I'm fine with
I like the Barbarian Rage changes, need to think about brutal critical a bit more though

[Boverk]

Superior Defense/Body and Mind: And here’s the problem. These two make the Monk a better barbarian than the barbarian. This monk is effectively the 2014 Bear Totem barb with 5 attacks (plus possibly haste) and a 26 AC (10 plus 8 dex and 8 wis). Hard pass.



Minor thing, but only one of Dexterity and Wisdom could be at 26 (you can get one of them to 22 at level 19, then they both get +4 at level 20)

The monk would also have significantly less health than a barbarian if they've used all their ASI's to bump Dexterity and Wisdom.

I do agree that there's a bit of toe-stepping here. Would it be better to have it be a bonus to AC and saving throws? Monk dodges, barbarian absorbs?

[Oramac]

Minor thing, but only one of Dexterity and Wisdom could be at 26 (you can get one of them to 22 at level 19, then they both get +4 at level 20)

The monk would also have significantly less health than a barbarian if they've used all their ASI's to bump Dexterity and Wisdom.

I do agree that there's a bit of toe-stepping here. Would it be better to have it be a bonus to AC and saving throws? Monk dodges, barbarian absorbs?

Good catch. But that still means a monk with 25 AC base and resistance to basically all damage. Even with just a basic point buy monk and 14 Con, you can get ~143 hp at 20th level. With resistance that's effectively 286 hp on top of all the Dope Monk **** and having a +8 Dex modifier.

In short, it's cool, but I think it's way too powerful and steps on the toes of the Barb a little too much. Especially since they just spent so much time telling us that Bear Totem was overpowered.

[Psyren]

Hmm, I think I need clarification on that. It says you forgo Advantage on the next attack. I am not sure that if you have another source of Advantage on that attack, you could still benefit from it. Generally Advantages or Disadvantages don't stack with themselves, and the wording here doesn't suggest to me that you could treat it this way.

Yeah, on re-read I think you're right. It's kind of odd (okay, very odd) that even if the enemy is restrained or prone or paralyzed or blind or outright unconscious that you'd get no attack benefit from that. Hopefully they can clarify. ("If you have advantage from another source..." etc.)



- Primal Order: I predict nobody ever picks Warden. Those who would pick it are likely to also pick Circle of the Moon, making Warden much less useful.

I actually see it being the opposite, Warden is going to be crazy useful for every druid EXCEPT moon.


Wild Shape: I predict that more often than not, people will still be mid-combat digging through the PHB looking for stat blocks. Honestly, I’d put in a line or box urging the player to create another sheet with the beast stats on it before play begins.

"Digging through the PHB" is completely fine imo, that's the book they should be digging through. And you still have limited forms known, so once those are selected, you no longer have the entire toolbox to choose from.



- Disciplined Survivor: There’s no limit to how often you can use it on any one saving throw. Is this intended? I can reroll it as many times as I have discipline points for?

It says "the second result." So you can spam it as much as you want, but only the second result will prevail, not #3, #4, etc.

[Boverk]

On Monk Weapons, the document says


"Your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use your Unarmed Strike and Monk Weapons, which are Simple Melee Weapons and Martial Weapons with the Light property"

Which as written includes hand crossbows (obviously not intended)... they need another Melee after Martial.

[Psyren]

On Monk Weapons, the document says



Which as written includes hand crossbows (obviously not intended)... they need another Melee after Martial.

Oh great catch by the way - martial weapon proficiency means Monks are now eligible for a bunch of the half-feats they lost in UA6 again, like Charger and Sentinel.

[zlefin]

So, if I'm reading this right; one possible plan for monk is to just forego more interesting feats and just aim for 26 AC at level 20? I'm having trouble remembering all the changes to how everything adds up, an dI haven't done much 5e either, so it's a bit hard to track it all.

[Oramac]

Yeah, on re-read I think you're right. It's kind of odd (okay, very odd) that even if the enemy is restrained or prone or paralyzed or blind or outright unconscious that you'd get no attack benefit from that. Hopefully they can clarify. ("If you have advantage from another source..." etc.)

Definitely needs this.


I actually see it being the opposite, Warden is going to be crazy useful for every druid EXCEPT moon.

I suppose if we're of opposite mind and not vehemently arguing about it, it's probably a perfect feature. :smallbiggrin:


"Digging through the PHB" is completely fine imo, that's the book they should be digging through. And you still have limited forms known, so once those are selected, you no longer have the entire toolbox to choose from.

True. I just don't see the average player actually doing any of that. It'll still be "I wild shape into...[looks at available forms in class description]...a spider!...[wastes 10 minutes finding the spider in the PHB]..."ok, now I want to attack"...[another 5 minutes reading the stat block and making attacks]

To be fair, it will 100% be better than diving through the monster manual. No question there. I'm just unsure how much better it'll actually be.


It says "the second result." So you can spam it as much as you want, but only the second result will prevail, not #3, #4, etc.

A little pedantic, but true enough. I suppose I'd rather it just get rewritten to specifically say you can use it once per saving throw.

[Boverk]

So, if I'm reading this right; one possible plan for monk is to just forego more interesting feats and just aim for 26 AC at level 20? I'm having trouble remembering all the changes to how everything adds up, an dI haven't done much 5e either, so it's a bit hard to track it all.

25 from stats only if you get 26 dex and 24 wis (can only bump one stat to 22 at level 19)

If doing point buy, using all 5 ASI's on Dex and Wisdom, you could have 8 in str, int, and cha, 16 con, 26 dex and 24 wisdom at level 20.

We're also getting items that are functionally +X weapons for unarmed (I think there were handwraps in a recent book?)

[Psyren]

So, if I'm reading this right; one possible plan for monk is to just forego more interesting feats and just aim for 26 AC at level 20? I'm having trouble remembering all the changes to how everything adds up, and I haven't done much 5e either, so it's a bit hard to track it all.

1) Without magic items it'll be 25 actually; Devoting every ASI to increases, you'll land on 26/24 rather than 26/26, because only one will be able to hit 22 at 19th level.

2) Most of the 4th-level feats are half-feats now, so if you start with a 17 and a 16 in Dex and Wis, you'll still have room for an interesting half-feat and still hit 26/24. Doing so will mean dumping Str, Int, and Cha however. (Well, one of those can be 10).

Alternatively, you can skip the interesting feat and go 15/15/15/8/8/8, then make your racial bonuses be +1/+1/+1. That would also allow you to hit 26/24 by 20th level, with 16 Con instead of 14.

[GooeyChewie]

- Primal Order: I predict nobody ever picks Warden. Those who would pick it are likely to also pick Circle of the Moon, making Warden much less useful.



I actually see it being the opposite, Warden is going to be crazy useful for every druid EXCEPT moon.

I agree with Psyren. Even if I plan to play a pure caster, getting medium armor is probably better than getting my 3rd-best Cantrip.

[Psyren]

True. I just don't see the average player actually doing any of that. It'll still be "I wild shape into...[looks at available forms in class description]...a spider!...[wastes 10 minutes finding the spider in the PHB]..."ok, now I want to attack"...[another 5 minutes reading the stat block and making attacks]

To be fair, it will 100% be better than diving through the monster manual. No question there. I'm just unsure how much better it'll actually be.

Again though, once the player has their forms selected, it won't matter what's in the book. If I'm a 4th-level druid and I have Riding Horse, Spider, Wolf, and Octopus, I'm done - every single fight I get into from there, I'd better make one of those 5 fit the bill.

Where I will agree with you though is that the number of forms scales too far. At level 20 the druid will have 12 forms known, one of which can be swapped out every long rest, that's still enough for the volume of choices themselves to bog down combat. I think it should be a number of forms = 2 + PB, or maybe 2 + 1/3 druid level instead of 1/2, those will top out the player's choices at 8 instead of 12 and allow for plenty of toolbox variety. And if that's still too few for moon to have during an adventuring day somehow, bake additional forms known into the subclass.

[Oramac]

Again though, once the player has their forms selected, it won't matter what's in the book. If I'm a 4th-level druid and I have Riding Horse, Spider, Wolf, and Octopus, I'm done - every single fight I get into from there, I'd better make one of those 5 fit the bill.

It absolutely still matters. Most players barely write their class features on their character sheet, nevermind subclass features. Again, I'm not talking about us on this forum. We're the min maxers that like the crunch and diving into all this stuff. We'll be fine.

It's the non-Giants-in-the-Playground that will cause the same issues as before (looking up forms and stat blocks every damn time). If WOTC is going to continue using stat blocks, there needs to be a section that recommends to the player how to handle it all. Print them out before the game; write the page number on your character sheet; take a picture on your phone. Do something to help speed up play.

[GooeyChewie]

It absolutely still matters. Most players barely write their class features on their character sheet, nevermind subclass features. Again, I'm not talking about us on this forum. We're the min maxers that like the crunch and diving into all this stuff. We'll be fine.

It's the non-Giants-in-the-Playground that will cause the same issues as before (looking up forms and stat blocks every damn time). If WOTC is going to continue using stat blocks, there needs to be a section that recommends to the player how to handle it all. Print them out before the game; write the page number on your character sheet; take a picture on your phone. Do something to help speed up play.

That, plus if they’re going to recommend stat blocks I would like to see those stat blocks printed in the Wildshape section. That way brand new players (or lazy experienced ones) don’t even have to go flipping through the PHB to have the basic shapes.

[Amechra]

The best part of this version of the Monk is the new version of Step of the Wind. Dash for free, Dash+Disengage+doubled jump if you spend a point is pretty nice... and then 10th level lets you bring an ally with you when moving. What a nice feature.

I kinda wish that Flurry of Blows wasn't 2-3 attacks, though, since that's probably going to be what most people will go for 90% of the time.

[Merlecory]

Hand crossbows are now monk weapons, and you can use stunning strike on any attack make with a monk weapon.

No love for short bow monks though. Those don't qualify as monk weapons.

[Psyren]

It absolutely still matters. Most players barely write their class features on their character sheet, nevermind subclass features. Again, I'm not talking about us on this forum. We're the min maxers that like the crunch and diving into all this stuff. We'll be fine.

It's the non-Giants-in-the-Playground that will cause the same issues as before (looking up forms and stat blocks every damn time). If WOTC is going to continue using stat blocks, there needs to be a section that recommends to the player how to handle it all. Print them out before the game; write the page number on your character sheet; take a picture on your phone. Do something to help speed up play.

That's exactly what Forms Known does - it narrows the player down from "flip through the entire PHB/MM" to "here are the 6 I know." I don't really know what more you want than that, barring templates.


That, plus if they’re going to recommend stat blocks I would like to see those stat blocks printed in the Wildshape section. That way brand new players (or lazy experienced ones) don’t even have to go flipping through the PHB to have the basic shapes.

Brand New/Lazy Players will pick Riding Horse, Spider, and Wolf - just like the feature tells them to.

[Merlecory]

Double posting because I'm a baddie.

Brutal strikes sure looks like it's yet another, one per turn do damage and apply rider features that WotC send to have gotten a fetish for in this UA. This UA has been so lacking in those

It's also yet another way to shove. I think this makes Barbarians, open hand monks, battle master fighters, and everyone with the shove mastery that get to move enemies basically every turn. Add in topples, and you sure seem to get D&D: On Ice!

[Oramac]

"here are the 6 I know."

Which they won't write down, will have to look up in the PHB, and then have to flip to the back to find the stat block. All of which slows down the game; not any different than what we have currently.

What I want is what I said before (plus what GooeyChewie said). Include verbiage (and, ideally, the stat blocks) in the druid class that recommends to the player how to use the information available to them.

[Psyren]

Which they won't write down, will have to look up in the PHB, and then have to flip to the back to find the stat block. All of which slows down the game; not any different than what we have currently.

What I want is what I said before (plus what GooeyChewie said). Include verbiage (and, ideally, the stat blocks) in the druid class that recommends to the player how to use the information available to them.

It's very different than what we have currently, because what we have currently are statblocks in the PHB that stop at CR 1 and therefore are useless for Moon Druids past level 5 and thus force them towards the full MM, from which the Druid can make selections without limit every time they activate the feature. Simply using the same small subset repeatedly will naturally encourage the player to have those selections ready, and both they and the DM will even memorize them over time.

The statblocks being in the PHB (and only those allowed by default) is enough, without them cluttering up an additional section of the book, or worse, some statblocks being in the druid entry while others are in the animals section.



Double posting because I'm a baddie.

Brutal strikes sure looks like it's yet another, one per turn do damage and apply rider features that WotC send to have gotten a fetish for in this UA. This UA has been so lacking in those

It's also yet another way to shove. I think this makes Barbarians, open hand monks, battle master fighters, and everyone with the shove mastery that get to move enemies basically every turn. Add in topples, and you sure seem to get D&D: On Ice!

Shoves/pushes are great because they foster teamwork. Knock that enemy away so your archer can get out of melee, shove them into that zone of bad your caster just put down, shoulder-check them into a hazard on the battlefield like a fire or a chasm etc.

[Merlecory]

Shoves/pushes are great because they foster teamwork. Knock that enemy away so your archer can get out of melee, shove them into that zone of bad your caster just put down, shoulder-check them into a hazard on the battlefield like a fire or a chasm etc.

A few shoves are great. I feel like shove and topple has become the thing that they are willing to add to martial characters (well, those and once per turn damage boosts). WotC send to have one idea at a time, and then they try to make that happen everywhere. It feels very homogeneous.

[GooeyChewie]

Brand New/Lazy Players will pick Riding Horse, Spider, and Wolf - just like the feature tells them to.

Yes, those are the stat blocks I would like to see presented in a convenient manner for the benefit of such players.

[Talij]

The scaling on Conjure Minor Elementals seems crazy. 9th level it adds 12d8 to EACH attack. Wildshape into something that has 3 attacks and that gets out of hand fast.

[Zevox]

Personally... eh.

Barbarian: Changes are pretty much "more rages" and Brutal Strike replacing Brutal Critical. Which is fine I guess. Personally I would've preferred they just recognize how little Brutal Critical really does and add onto it rather than scrap it entirely, since I do like the idea that Barbarian crits hurt more than other classes', but oh well. The criticisms I've given them of other things I see are still not being touched, so I guess those are just going through. Pity.

Druid: Okay, basically everything changed here is Wild Shape and Moon Druid, and I've liked precisely none of what they're doing with those, so no shock that remains the case with these. Definitely one where I'll continue to use the 5e version over this 5.5e revision for my table.

Monk: There are some legitimately good changes to the core class, but I find myself primarily sighing in disappointment at the fact that they actually did not include the Four Elements Monk. Which means the version from last time will, by and large, be what we get, which is supremely disappointing because I find it further from what I want than the original. The original one at least made me want to see a good version of the subclass because I could clearly see the inspiration from Benders, the new version just made me go "what the hell even is this?" Also, still no fan of the changed names to their abilities.

Spells:
- "Conjure" spells: Yeah, by and large I'd toss these in the garbage with the new Wild Shape stuff. While I like some of the mechanical convenience of the Tasha's "Summon" spells (in particular them acting on the summoner's initiative but after the summoner instead of rolling their own initiative, which is absolutely a change I apply to the Conjure line now), losing the ability to summon actual creatures from the Monster Manual is not something I'm okay with. Granted you're not losing much in Conjure Celestial's case given the tiny number of options it has, but not so for the rest. As far as the mechanics of the new spells go, they're mostly uninspired IMO, with many clearly based on existing spell effects. Conjure Fey is the only one I feel has some merit personally, there's an off chance I may rename that and use it someday.
- Healing spell buffs: Good choice, they kind of need it. With few exceptions (Healing Spirit, Aura of Vitality, Heal) healing spells in this edition have largely been pretty weak. Healing Word's good, but mostly because it's a bonus action and ranged, so it gets downed characters back up with minimal difficulty, not because the amount it heals is worth talking about.
- Power Word: Fortify is fine I guess. If you're going to blow a 7th-level spell slot on just temp hp, it needs to be a lot, and that is a lot. Always hard to judge high-level spells' true power given how rare it is to see the levels where they're used though.
- Starry Wisp: Not bad, I like this as a Star Druid cantrip in particular. Kind of feels like it should be a Cleric spell too though, particularly given the existence of the Light and Twilight domains. I definitely feel like my Selûnite Light Cleric in BG3 would've loved to trade Produce Flame for this.

[Psyren]

Yes, those are the stat blocks I would like to see presented in a convenient manner for the benefit of such players.

Their options are:

1) Put those three statblocks in the druid entry, and the rest in the statblock section at the back.
2) Put those three statblocks in the druid entry, and then repeat them again in the statblock section at the back.
3) Put all the beast statblocks in the druid entry, making it the longest class entry in the whole book.
4) Put all the beast statblocks together in the statblock section at the back.

I think option 4 is the cleanest.


The scaling on Conjure Minor Elementals seems crazy. 9th level it adds 12d8 to EACH attack. Wildshape into something that has 3 attacks and that gets out of hand fast.

Good callout, that's way faster scaling than Spirit Shroud and so is probably overtuned.



Monk: There are some legitimately good changes to the core class, but I find myself primarily sighing in disappointment at the fact that they actually did not include the Four Elements Monk. Which means the version from last time will, by and large, be what we get, which is supremely disappointing because I find it further from what I want than the original. The original one at least made me want to see a good version of the subclass because I could clearly see the inspiration from Benders, the new version just made me go "what the hell even is this?" Also, still no fan of the changed names to their abilities.


Agreed, I was hoping 4E would be an elemental spellcaster. I know the UA6 4E scored high, but I think that was because 2014 4E was so bad. They didn't need to scrap the "elemental spellcasting monk" concept entirely.



Druid: Okay, basically everything changed here is Wild Shape and Moon Druid, and I've liked precisely none of what they're doing with those, so no shock that remains the case with these. Definitely one where I'll continue to use the 5e version over this 5.5e revision for my table.


Could you elaborate on this? 2014 Druid feels worse in every way than this, e.g. metal armor restriction, shorter duration familiar, can't speak during wild shape, can't convert spell slots into more wild shape, no cantrip or shapeshifting damage buffs etc. Did you meen Moon specifically?

[Zevox]

Agreed, I was hoping 4E would be an elemental spellcaster. I know the UA6 4E scored high, but I think that was because 2014 4E was so bad. They didn't need to scrap the "elemental spellcasting monk" concept entirely.
"Elemental spellcaster" is actually not at all what I want out of it. The abilites of the 4E Monk that just copy spells were the weak part of it, IMO, and their prevalence one of my main criticisms of it. I wanted more things like Water Whip, Fist of Unbroken Air, Fangs of the Fire Snake, and Shape the Flowing River. Unique abilities that fit the elemental bender style, not just "spend ki to cast a spell."

But sadly, looks like homebrew's the only way I'll ever get that now. More's the pity. It means the two things I was most hoping to see come from this revision of the core rules - a good version of the Four Elements Monk that actually delivers on what it felt like it was trying to be, and a Warlock that isn't short-rest dependent - both just aren't happening.

[Dr.Samurai]

A few shoves are great. I feel like shove and topple has become the thing that they are willing to add to martial characters (well, those and once per turn damage boosts). WotC send to have one idea at a time, and then they try to make that happen everywhere. It feels very homogeneous.
I agree. Pushing and Knocking Prone seem very easy to do now, which is... weird.

I worry it will obsolete enemy grappling, since you can just knock the enemy away from your ally. For monsters that have to grab, then next turn attack+swallow, they may never get to swallow anyone whole.


Barbarian: Changes are pretty much "more rages" and Brutal Strike replacing Brutal Critical. Which is fine I guess. Personally I would've preferred they just recognize how little Brutal Critical really does and add onto it rather than scrap it entirely, since I do like the idea that Barbarian crits hurt more than other classes', but oh well. The criticisms I've given them of other things I see are still not being touched, so I guess those are just going through. Pity.
Yeah, I would have preferred that Brutal Critical remain as well. I really like the idea of Brutal Strike but it doesn't seem to get passed the finish line exactly. I agree with Psyren and others that it should allow you to benefit from Advantage from other sources. That would be unique as well as letting Reckless not be redundant with other buffs.

[Psyren]

I agree. Pushing and Knocking Prone seem very easy to do now, which is... weird.

I worry it will obsolete enemy grappling, since you can just knock the enemy away from your ally. For monsters that have to grab, then next turn attack+swallow, they may never get to swallow anyone whole.

You can even do so from range, because these work with thrown attacks!

I wouldn't mind a size limit on this. That way Huge and Gargantuan creatures - the ones that are more likely to swallow anyway - would still be threatening in that regard.

[ZRN]

BTW Psyren, in your great summary post you miss what seems to me like a big monk buff - Deflect Missiles now working in melee.

I'd like to play this monk before making an overall judgment - it seems definitely better than the 2014 version, more flexible and powerful overall, but a lot of the awkward bits (low ki at low levels, mediocre damage, tough choices with your bonus action) are still there.

[Psyren]

The Weapon Master half-feat could alleviate the bonus action conflict issue. Pick something with Nick like a Dagger or a Scimitar for that feat at level 4 and wield a pair of them. Then at level 5, dart in, make 3 attacks with your Action, try for a stunning strike, if it fails you get 1d8+Wis bonus damage and can disengage with your BA to get back out. If instead it succeeds, flurry instead for 2 more hits. At level 10, you'll be able to flurry for 3 hits with your BA instead. 6 attacks at level 10 doesn't sound two shabby to me.

[Hael]

Another unimpressive UA for me (I won't be paying money for this version).

I do like some (not all) of the monk changes on balance (and they've likely overtuned them), but other than that, I feel like chatgpt could do a better job providing interesting features.

The druid class remains a poorly implemented shell. Its as if they managed to accomplish nothing of their original design goals for 1DnD. Worse, they've gutted a major component of the druids identity (conjure X) and replaced them with nondynamic blobs. The class features are basically there to scale wildshape, and it remains a pretty poor combat feature overall. There is very little for non wildshape druids.

Meanwhile they ran out of ideas for Barbarians, so they basically gave them the fighter/rogue maneuvers. I mean, its fine, its just such lazy development that one wonders if their hearts are in this at all.

The scaling on the spells will need to be looked at... But I mean, for the most part one wonders what they've been doing for the better part of a year.

[Psyren]

The druid class remains a poorly implemented shell. Its as if they managed to accomplish nothing of their original design goals for 1DnD. Worse, they've gutted a major component of the druids identity (conjure X) and replaced them with nondynamic blobs. The class features are basically there to scale wildshape, and it remains a pretty poor combat feature overall. There is very little for non wildshape druids.


Non-wildshape druids got a ton of new stuff relative to 2014: metal medium armor, bonus damage and range on their cantrips, a full-duration familiar built into the class, the ability to convert wildshape uses into additional spell slots, and a bonus feat at level 1 (which can be spent on even more spells and cantrips, or Alert/Lucky/etc.) And that's before considering racial spells, which can be cast with your druid slots now too. They might be the only caster in the whole game that can get an additional 8th-level spell slot per day.

[Aimeryan]

Non-wildshape druids got a ton of new stuff relative to 2014: metal medium armor, bonus damage and range on their cantrips, a full-duration familiar built into the class, the ability to convert wildshape uses into additional spell slots, and a bonus feat at level 1 (which can be spent on even more spells and cantrips, or Alert/Lucky/etc.) And that's before considering racial spells, which can be cast with your druid slots now too. They might be the only caster in the whole game that can get an additional 8th-level spell slot per day.

I presume Hael is talking about a niche/identity. Druid casting has always been one of the weakest, with its claim to fame being the Conjure line for minionmancy. Now the latter is gone.

[Bosh]

Really unimpressed with brutal strike. You can trade reckless attack for battlemaster maneuvers. That's real boring. Strong, yeah sure. But just keeps up the trend of homogenizing everything. Does EVERY melee class need to have a 15 foot push with an extra damage die? Brutal critical wasn't very powerful, but it was something the barbarian could call his own.

Monk changes are good, if maybe a little over pushed.

Yeah everything is getting so damn homogenized. Rogues can trade in sneak attack dice for rider effects that are similar to battlemaster maneuvers and now barbarians can do pretty much the same thing! Rogues can bonus action dash for free and now monks can too! They gave fighters a shiny new thing...and then shared it out to a bunch of other classes as well. Hell, they tried to homogenize the spell lists for no good reason. Seems to just be flattening out a lot of the differences between classes. A lot of these changes look fine individually but put together they just seem to make for a more bland edition and I'm worried that the small increases in complexity that veteran players aren't going to notice are going to hit newbies and make it harder to bring new people into the game.

As it is classes just get too much of a grab bag of abilities and it makes it harder for them to feel meaningfully distinct. Would like each class to get ONE defining ability that dominates their class and have most of their features tie in with that, with subclasses tweaking how that one feature works. That'd make each class be more iconic and hopefully cut down on how many different features newbies have to juggle.

For example:

Barbarians: their one iconic feature is RAGE. As they gain levels just about all of their new class features tie into buffing what rage can do (for ****'s sake give ALL barbarians immunity to fear while raging even if they have to wait a few levels to get that). Then make all of the barbarian subclasses modify what rage can do (hey, they mostly already do that, YAY!).

Rogues: their one iconic feature is Cunning Action. Sneak attack can stay in some form but I always liked rogues better as, well, rogues rather than snipers ("I sneak attack, I move, I cunning action hide, repeat" is also boring). Make cunning action do more stuff and buff it up as rogues gain levels so rogues can do all kinds of crazy stuff in a round. A lot of subclasses in 5e give rogues more stuff to do with their cunning action, double down on that and buff the **** out of that to make rogues feel unique.

Bards and druids: knock them both down to half casters and make Bardic Inspiration and Wildshape big smashy class-defining abilities so bards have more of a unique niche instead of having their power budget be so dominated by casting and druids can feel more distinct than just being Nature Clerics, which is kinda what they've felt like all the way back to 1e.

For the casting classes their one cool thing is ****ing CASTING. Strip out most of their class features except for those and make their casting more unique and make their subclasses modify their spell casting a bit instead of giving them a bunch of new features to keep track of. Divine souls are a good example of what I want, their main class feature modifies how their casting works rather than giving them a bunch of new features in addition to casting. Warlocks have a pretty unique casting system but the other casters feel too samey, make the way they cast be more unique (bring back REAL Vancian casting for wizards and wizards only for example).


Maybe. If so, I feel like it kind of hurts their claim of backwards compatibility, since a character made purely from the 2014 rules will have the wrong spells.

I think backwards compatibility is just a fig leaf really. Look at how little 3.0ed content was used in the 3.5ed era. I expect there'll be 5e tables and 5.5e tables and not a lot of crossover. The only meaningful backwards compatibility we'll have is that 5e adventures should still be usable in 5.5e.

[Kane0]

Not a bad UA. Shame they didn't start out with this three or five UAs ago.

[Dr.Samurai]

So high level monks:

1. Have proficiency in all saves.
2. Deflect 1 attack per turn, whether melee or ranged, of any damage type.
3. Dodge as a bonus action, gaining THP as they do.
4. Gain resistance to all damage except Force.
5. End the Frightened, Charmed, or Poisoned condition at the end of their turn.
6. Spend a ki point to reroll a failed saving throw.

That's a lot of defensive goodies. I mean... it's high level, and Patient Defense costs ki. But still, seems like a lot. Or maybe I'm just used to classes not getting much lol.

I wish you weren't locked into Dexterity with a monk though. I'd love to play a class like this with Strength, and not have crap AC.

[Slipjig]

Does EVERY melee class need to have a 15 foot push with an extra damage die?

I suspect the idea is that it provides them with a legitimate means of actually tanking. e.g. "Get away from him [knockback]!" Of course, the protected character will probably need to reposition on their turn to avoid being re-engaged, but this way they are doing it without suffering an AoO.

And I'm okay with the Monk not getting a bigger HD. I feel like a Monk should be hard to hit, but not especially tough when you DO connect. The Disengage and Dash BAs should fulfill that, especially since they can now choose to Dodge and still Flurry. That obviously cuts their damage output way down, but it should let them tank a flock of mooks reasonably well.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think you can Dodge and Flurry at the same time, unless I missed something. I think you can Dash and Flurry, but not Dodge.

[Makorel]

Okay I didn't say anything when the Rogue UA dropped but if both base Rogue and base Barbarian can get maneuvers maybe base Fighter can also get maneuvers?



- Brutal Strike: IMO, an excellent idea with poor execution. Instead of trading out reckless advantage (which makes Brutal Strike worse against high-AC enemies), you should be able to trade out Rage Damage for effects. For example: I can trade out the flat +3 at 9th level to instead gain +1d6.

I like this idea. Removing advantage to add damage seems kinda bass-ackwards, and as others have said needs some clarification on which advantage counts.


This doesn't bother me as much since you no longer have to take the attack action to flurry of blows. So now you could take the dodge action and flurry of blows, or disengage action and flurry of blows, Use a magic item, flurry of blows.

Baldur's Gate 3 did the same thing, and I suspect is the reason why this change was made. Monks are actually really flexible when they can divide up their action and bonus action in this way, especially if you're fighting at a range where a melee character would otherwise sigh and pull out their javelins.

[Hurrashane]

I don't think you can Dodge and Flurry at the same time, unless I missed something. I think you can Dash and Flurry, but not Dodge.

Use the dodge action and flurry as a BA. Afaik none of the UAs got rid of that as a viable use of your action

[Psyren]

I presume Hael is talking about a niche/identity. Druid casting has always been one of the weakest, with its claim to fame being the Conjure line for minionmancy. Now the latter is gone.

Even if they took the conjure spells away entirely Druid would still be still a top tier class, even before subclass lists are added. But we have an entire other thread to argue over the Druid spell list.



give ALL barbarians immunity to fear while raging

I'd be okay with this, or at least advantage on the save.



Rogues: their one iconic feature is Cunning Action. Sneak attack can stay in some form but I always liked rogues better as, well, rogues rather than snipers ("I sneak attack, I move, I cunning action hide, repeat" is also boring). Make cunning action do more stuff and buff it up as rogues gain levels so rogues can do all kinds of crazy stuff in a round. A lot of subclasses in 5e give rogues more stuff to do with their cunning action, double down on that and buff the **** out of that to make rogues feel unique.

As you yourself mentioned though, that's what the subclasses are for.



Bards and druids: knock them both down to half casters

Yuck :smallyuk: No thanks. If you want a half caster bard or druid, multiclass out.


For the casting classes their one cool thing is ****ing CASTING. Strip out most of their class features except for those and make their casting more unique and make their subclasses modify their spell casting a bit instead of giving them a bunch of new features to keep track of. Divine souls are a good example of what I want, their main class feature modifies how their casting works rather than giving them a bunch of new features in addition to casting.

3/5 of a Divine Soul's features don't rely on their spellcasting :smallconfused: and even the fourth one can be saved to use on other people's spells rather than yours.


Use the dodge action and flurry as a BA. Afaik none of the UAs got rid of that as a viable use of your action

Correct, however this is indeed the first version of the Monk that can do this, since before to Flurry you needed to use the Attack Action. (Barring extra Actions, that is.)

[Dr.Samurai]

Oh duh, they just introduced that feature in this UA, that Flurry doesn't require the Attack action. I REALLY like this feature; it allows for a lot of versatility.

I wonder if this new edition will have magical "weapons" for Monk unarmed strikes.


I was really disappointed when they removed the bonus-action-doesn't-require-attack-action attack from the Berserker subclass. In most cases you'll just attack/attack/attack. But having the option to do something else and still attack as a bonus action can be really rewarding. I was sad when they removed it and replaced it with bonus damage once per turn. Now I'm just confused. Like, I get the barbarian can do this with a two-handed weapon, but it's once. The monk can eventually make 3 attacks as a bonus action. So... why is the world so cruel? Why remove this from the berserker but give to the monk? Why must we continue to endure this abuse? Each iteration cuts deeper than the last, leaving a wound that never heals, but only festers and intensifies with the passage of time. Why, God, why?

[Intregus182]

Am I missing something or does brutal strike essentially mean, here's a class feature at level 13 That replaces a feature from level 2.......

At least with brutal crit it was another feature at level 13 that synergizes with your feature from level 2.(don't get me wrong they needed more than just brutal crit at this level)

Now I just feel like barbs got something taken away and like others have said more homogenized.


Also did they move away from the whole "each class is grouped into a category. All experts get expertise all priests get channel, all warriors get masteries" thing.......cause monks don't get those anymore.......

[Skrum]

I'm sure people have picked it to pieces already, but I gotta say, monk is looking *on point.* Basically every QoL change I wished for is there, and monk is getting some notable buffs on top of that. I really like what I'm seeing.

Last piece monk needs, and it wouldn't be in the class feature, is magic item support. Handwraps +X, maybe a couple of wondrous items that boost AC and save DC's, and monk is looking to be in a very good place.

The provided subclass is underwhelming. Outright bad even - just doesn't offer very much, especially considering the suped-up base class. Was hoping for a little more in that department for sure. But, Open Hand has always been bad, and presumably one can just take the much better Mercy or Shadow options.

[Psyren]

I wonder if this new edition will have magical "weapons" for Monk unarmed strikes.




Last piece monk needs, and it wouldn't be in the class feature, is magic item support. Handwraps +X, maybe a couple of wondrous items that boost AC and save DC's, and monk is looking to be in a very good place.


FYI, we got these in the latest book (Book of Many Things): Wraps of Unarmed Prowess (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/7526798-wraps-of-unarmed-prowess) (+1 uncommon, +2 rare, +3 very rare). They don't require attunement. I have little doubt these will be the promised "unarmed magic weapons" in the new core, as they're very generic/campaign-agnostic.

[Skrum]

FYI, we got these in the latest book (Book of Many Things): Wraps of Unarmed Prowess (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/7526798-wraps-of-unarmed-prowess) (+1 uncommon, +2 rare, +3 very rare). They don't require attunement. I have little doubt these will be the promised "unarmed magic weapons" in the new core, as they're very generic/campaign-agnostic.

Word.

Kinda excited to play a monk! My last lingering complaint is the wisdom dependency :smallbiggrin:. Though I suppose I can play high wisdom as cunning street-smarts when I roll up a thuggish street fighter character.

[Dr.Samurai]

Word.

Kinda excited to play a monk! My last lingering complaint is the wisdom dependency :smallbiggrin:. Though I suppose I can play high wisdom as cunning street-smarts when I roll up a thuggish street fighter character.
Lol, I'm the other way. I want Strength/Wisdom over Dexterity/Wisdom. I'd take Strength/Dexterity as well though...

[Telwar]

And I'm okay with the Monk not getting a bigger HD. I feel like a Monk should be hard to hit, but not especially tough when you DO connect. The Disengage and Dash BAs should fulfill that, especially since they can now choose to Dodge and still Flurry. That obviously cuts their damage output way down, but it should let them tank a flock of mooks reasonably well.

Would be very nice if you could, say, guarantee having an actual decent AC at low-mid levels without relying on exceptionally good die rolls or massive quantities of dump stats.


FYI, we got these in the latest book (Book of Many Things): Wraps of Unarmed Prowess (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/7526798-wraps-of-unarmed-prowess) (+1 uncommon, +2 rare, +3 very rare). They don't require attunement. I have little doubt these will be the promised "unarmed magic weapons" in the new core, as they're very generic/campaign-agnostic.

That's mildly surprising. I'd heard they were going to include more magic items in the 2024 DMG that weren't either a) from the 2e DMG or b) for warlocks, so that's a good sign. Now, if only they'd significantly reduce attunement requirements all around

[Skrum]

Lol, I'm the other way. I want Strength/Wisdom over Dexterity/Wisdom. I'd take Strength/Dexterity as well though...

Yeah, fair point - was just brainstorming, and ran into exactly this problem. Monk with a barb dip would be a great street fighter, conceptually, but the stat needs are off the hook.

AC is still a bit of a problem, but they at least get a decent defensive feature that they can spam.

[Bosh]

As you yourself mentioned though, that's what the subclasses are for.

Somewhat, look at barbarians. A lot of their power comes from rage but the subclasses customize the rage and allow it to do different things. That's the kind of design I like (although you can quibble with the implementation as barbarians can be a bit samey tactically) as it makes barbarians the RAGE class where everything ties into rage.



Yuck :smallyuk: No thanks. If you want a half caster bard or druid, multiclass out.

Yes, but that conflict with what I'd like bards/druids to do (be VERY VERY good at inspiration and wildshape). The thing is casters CAN'T be VERY VERY good at anything besides casting so that shoved them all in similar niches. Just don't think we need THAT many full casters, especially their casting systems (except warlocks) are pretty samey.


3/5 of a Divine Soul's features don't rely on their spellcasting :smallconfused: and even the fourth one can be saved to use on other people's spells rather than yours.

Right but there are a subclass's defining features and then there's the more ribbon abilities. The defining ability of divine souls is being able to cast cleric spells. But yeah, would like even more focus on that.

[Psyren]

Barb 1/Battlemaster X with Tavern Brawler would make a fine unarmed and unarmored strength-based street fighter. You're a bit more MAD because unlike the monk your offense stat is not the same as your defense stats, but at the same time, you get more ASIs than they do. Or just wear a breastplate.

[Skrum]

Barb 1/Battlemaster X with Tavern Brawler would make a fine unarmed and unarmored strength-based street fighter. You're a bit more MAD because unlike the monk your offense stat is not the same as your defense stats, but at the same time, you get more ASIs than they do. Or just wear a breastplate.

Eh, I've always been underwhelmed by fighter for unarmed builds. You have to spend hard resources (and fighters only get a few) recreating something they normally buy, shields while unarmed are doofy, and they don't get extra attacks meaning their offense is going to be middling.

It *possible* to do it, but I don't really like the results.

[Psyren]

Eh, I've always been underwhelmed by fighter for unarmed builds. You have to spend hard resources (and fighters only get a few) recreating something they normally buy, shields while unarmed are doofy, and they don't get extra attacks meaning their offense is going to be middling.

It *possible* to do it, but I don't really like the results.

Fighter doesn't get extra attacks? What? :smallconfused:

Shields while Unarmed make you Captain America or Taskmaster. I don't see a problem with that.


Somewhat, look at barbarians. A lot of their power comes from rage but the subclasses customize the rage and allow it to do different things. That's the kind of design I like (although you can quibble with the implementation as barbarians can be a bit samey tactically) as it makes barbarians the RAGE class where everything ties into rage.

We are getting that with rogue though; All 4 of the new subclasses interact with Sneak Attack via Cunning Strike options and/or mods. It seems likely that will be a design mandate for the class as a whole moving forward - at least for any new subclasses.


Yes, but that conflict with what I'd like bards/druids to do (be VERY VERY good at inspiration and wildshape). The thing is casters CAN'T be VERY VERY good at anything besides casting so that shoved them all in similar niches. Just don't think we need THAT many full casters, especially their casting systems (except warlocks) are pretty samey.

I don't know what you mean by "VERY VERY good at inspiration and wildshape." Inspiration is just a dice pool; some subclasses do indeed use it to build on what the base inspiration ability does (e.g. Eloquence and Creation), and others treat it purely as an extra resource (e.g. Whispers and Spirits.) Neither approach is wrong, and having both means more design space.

Similarly, only one druid needs to be "VERY VERY good at wildshape" and that's Moon. Maybe we'll get another for e.g. plants or elementals or even dragons later on, but for now we're good.


Right but there are a subclass's defining features and then there's the more ribbon abilities. The defining ability of divine souls is being able to cast cleric spells. But yeah, would like even more focus on that.

We got that, via them increasing the sorcerer's spells known and giving them a bunch of free spells + changing Magic Initiate so you can pick up even more. You have a lot more leeway as a DS to pick up cleric magic. I'm just really unclear on what it is you actually want.

[Amechra]

I honestly like Brutal Strike, and the complaints in this thread are... I'm kinda baffled, honestly. Is it some ground-breakingly novel ability? No, but it works really well with the Barbarian while still feeling like a Barbarian ability, and sneakily serves as a way to fix some of the issues with Reckless Attacks (like how it's kinda useless if you were already pretty likely to hit). I can pretty much guarantee you that it will feel different from a Rogue's Cunning Strike or a Battlemaster's maneuvers in play.

I'm also baffled that no-one else seems to have noticed how awesome the 10th level upgrade for Step of the Wind is — at the level that you get it, you have a 50ft move speed, which means that you'll be able to reposition an ally by up to 100ft. Potentially up walls or over liquids. Without spending any of their movement. The Monk Taxi is real.

[Skrum]

Fighter doesn't get extra attacks? What? :smallconfused:

Shields while Unarmed make you Captain America or Taskmaster. I don't see a problem with that.


They don't get flurry, and in my mind the idea of unarmed strikes is like boxing - peppering someone with lots of punches. But fighter gets exactly as many punches as they do greatsword swings, and that's a pretty big feel bad.

If you're going for a specific character concept, OK, sure, maybe fighter works well. But Sanoske, or Baki Hanma, or Yusuke (pre-powers)...meh. Not quite what I'm looking for.

[Psyren]

If you're going for a specific character concept, OK, sure, maybe fighter works well. But Sanoske, or Baki Hanma, or Yusuke (pre-powers)...meh. Not quite what I'm looking for.

I feel like a BM Fighter/Barb fits Baki quite well.
Yusuke is a monk, no question.


They don't get flurry, and in my mind the idea of unarmed strikes is like boxing - peppering someone with lots of punches. But fighter gets exactly as many punches as they do greatsword swings, and that's a pretty big feel bad.

Which is way more punches than anyone who isn't a monk gets. And the fighter can more reliably attack with their reaction too (Riposte, Sentinel). Oh, and they can even blow past the monk with Action Surge when they really want it to rain fists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbq7f2CcxE) Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[animewatcha]

Why can't they just let monks truely benefit from shields...leave it to the monk if they wanna spend an attunement slot to benefit from magical-ness of it magic shield's extra stuff beyond the ac.
Also, wouldn't it be easier to just keep the charmed, frightened portion but go back to monk immunity to poison in general?

[Dalinar]

I honestly like Brutal Strike, and the complaints in this thread are... I'm kinda baffled, honestly. Is it some ground-breakingly novel ability? No, but it works really well with the Barbarian while still feeling like a Barbarian ability, and sneakily serves as a way to fix some of the issues with Reckless Attacks (like how it's kinda useless if you were already pretty likely to hit). I can pretty much guarantee you that it will feel different from a Rogue's Cunning Strike or a Battlemaster's maneuvers in play.

I'm also baffled that no-one else seems to have noticed how awesome the 10th level upgrade for Step of the Wind is — at the level that you get it, you have a 50ft move speed, which means that you'll be able to reposition an ally by up to 100ft. Potentially up walls or over liquids. Without spending any of their movement. The Monk Taxi is real.

My take as well. Barb is one of the most starved-for-choice classes when it comes to moment-to-moment decisions in combat, and replacing their comically undertuned crit fishing with something that ameliorates that is A+ for me. The extra rage on a short rest is also very welcome.

As for Monk, I was genuinely expecting WOTC to continue coping about Monk being fine, and I'm blown away that they went as far as they did in this UA to actually bring it up to speed. The highlights for me are:

-fixing the weapon proficiency issue that locked them out of a bunch of feats (being randomly proficient in hand crossbows is weird, wonder if that's an oversight)
-Martial Arts' BA unarmed strike can now just be done whenever, increasing flexibility
-grapple and shove key off DEX for the Monk now (reminder that those are going to be unarmed strikes going forward)
-Patient Defense/Step of the Wind rework is one step better than "just let Monk dash/disengage without spending ki"
-Uncanny Metabolism right there at level 2--one free DP refill per day with a little healing added just for fun, online early enough that it's available when Monks need it most
-Deflect Missiles upgraded to Deflect Attacks; the math compares favorably against the closest thing I can think of, which is interception fighting style (albeit obviously that's for an ally rather than for self; but d10+DEX+Monk level is way more than d12+PB), but considering most Monk builds want to be in melee at least some of the time, I'll be shocked if this doesn't come up way more often now. huge early game survivability boost
-Stunning Strike consolation prize! I mean, it's implemented a little weird, but I'll take it.
-suite of cool level 10 buffs
-massively impactful class capstone

I'm going to wait for the more well-versed mathematicians than me to weigh in on DPR math, but this really seems like a win on basically all fronts except for weapon mastery, and you can just get a feat for Nick or something and probably be alright there.

Hand subclass is kind of okay I guess? I don't think it's trash, mostly on account of the level 11 feature (Step of the Wind is functionally "no action required" with it, and you get Monk Taxi the level before). Wholeness of Body is a little underwhelming compared to everything else you could do with your bonus action, so to me it's basically free recovery between combats. Open Hand Technique I think would mostly come into play for things like shoving enemies into environmental hazards or AOE spells, or isolating them from things like enemies with auras that buff other enemies. Addle and Topple are action economy savers in some situations (if you know you wanted to prone the enemy anyway, you could have just used the Flurry unarmed strikes for a shove, but you'd lose damage that way; likewise Addle lets you not have to use your BA on Disengage), which is probably useful, but not quite as interesting to me (I love shove effects). Lastly Quivering Palm can now be set up and detonated on the same turn, due to how Martial Arts and Flurry no longer requiring a preceding attack action, so if you want to dump a bajillion DP to finish off a beefy target, there's your option.

[Merlecory]

Here is something I just noticed: Feats have catagories. They have Background and General at the very least. Is this the return of the catagory specific feats, like thinkgs for warrior group only? Is this still something worth implemetning at this phase of the UA?

[Psyren]

Here is something I just noticed: Feats have catagories. They have Background and General at the very least. Is this the return of the catagory specific feats, like thinkgs for warrior group only? Is this still something worth implemetning at this phase of the UA?

I think it's just so they can arrange the feats in such a way that players aren't constantly tripped up by accidentally picking a 4th-level feat at chargen or picking the starter feats at 4+. It's difficult to say because the only UAs where we got a bunch of feats were the first two, but I expect all the 1st-level feats will be grouped together under Background Feat and all the 4th-level half-feats will be General.

[Skrum]

Which is way more punches than anyone who isn't a monk gets.

At level 11
Slightly idiosyncratic to the table I play at, but we max out at 10. Yes it's right before fighters get their big boost, woe is them, but 11 is a really long time to wait to feel like a boxer. Like a really long time. And that's not even counting the barb dip.



And the fighter can more reliably attack with their reaction too (Riposte, Sentinel). Oh, and they can even blow past the monk with Action Surge when they really want it to rain fists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbq7f2CcxE) Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

I'd honestly prefer to reflavor beast barb, who get 3 attacks per action by level 5.
I'm not saying fighter is a terrible choice (and I do love action surge), but between having to wear armor, not getting additional attacks until extremely late, and having to spend the fighting style on punching, it's pretty low on my list of options.

[Dr.Samurai]

Eh, I've always been underwhelmed by fighter for unarmed builds.
Yeah, there's a difference between "you can build a character to do this" and "I'm inspired by this class to play this".

Sure, I can build an unarmored and unarmed fighter and, like literally anything else in 5e, it will be "fine". But looking at all the features the monk gets, and their mobility, many and varied defenses, number of attacks and flexibility with those attacks, etc. you can just make a very different character altogether that feels like it would be exciting to play.

[Psyren]

At level 11
Slightly idiosyncratic to the table I play at, but we max out at 10. Yes it's right before fighters get their big boost, woe is them, but 11 is a really long time to wait to feel like a boxer. Like a really long time. And that's not even counting the barb dip.



I'd honestly prefer to reflavor beast barb, who get 3 attacks per action by level 5.
I'm not saying fighter is a terrible choice (and I do love action surge), but between having to wear armor, not getting additional attacks until extremely late, and having to spend the fighting style on punching, it's pretty low on my list of options.

I mean, if I knew you were okay with refluffing Beast Barb as a "boxer" I'd have suggested that from the beginning and saved us both some time :smalltongue: Glad you found a Str-based streetfighter you're okay with.



What really excites me about these monk changes are the quality of life improvements for low-level monks. A level 1 monk now can hang around in melee even with 15-16 AC and d8 HD simply by spamming Dodge with their action and punching as a Bonus Action. At level 2, they can not only keep doing this, they can throw in the occasional flurry, or simply punch with their action and dart back out if they're fighting something slower. I can actually start the game as a Monk with 14 Wis without feeling like I'm made of paper.

All four of the core monk subclasses become a lot more skirmishy too. Open Hand for 1 DP can get in and out at will, first at normal speed with Addle, then later with Fleet Step letting them dash and flurry+attack in the same turn AND take someone out with them. Or if Addle fails or there's too many enemies to addle them all, I can spend another DP to Dash+Disengage out after flurrying too.

Mercy is slightly less mobile, but if the target isn't immune to being poisoned, they effectively get to Dodge for free so they can just hang out in melee. Shadow can hang out in melee too, and it has the potential to be even nastier because they can see through their darkness to give the enemy disadvantage and themselves advantage - and now, Shadow Monk can throw a punch (or later, up to 3 punches) on the same round they create it. And 4E, thanks to being able to get both reach and push on every punch, may never need to Disengage at all.

[Oramac]

I honestly like Brutal Strike, and the complaints in this thread are... I'm kinda baffled, honestly. snip

I like Brutal Strike. My issue with it is that it actively hurts you the higher your target's AC gets. Which is why I suggested trading out the Rage Damage Bonus instead of Reckless Attack's advantage. Same basic effect, less issue with target AC.


I'm also baffled that no-one else seems to have noticed how awesome the 10th level upgrade for Step of the Wind is — at the level that you get it, you have a 50ft move speed, which means that you'll be able to reposition an ally by up to 100ft. Potentially up walls or over liquids. Without spending any of their movement. The Monk Taxi is real.

I had not noticed that, but now you mention it, holy crap! Yea, that's going to be awesome.

[Amechra]

My issue with it is that it actively hurts you the higher your target's AC gets.

That's one way of looking at it... or you could look at it as a way to make Reckless Attacks more useful against targets with low AC or in situations where you get another source of advantage (depending on how your DM rules the ability, of course). It's not like you're forced to sacrifice the advantage, after all.

[Psyren]

I like Brutal Strike. My issue with it is that it actively hurts you the higher your target's AC gets. Which is why I suggested trading out the Rage Damage Bonus instead of Reckless Attack's advantage. Same basic effect, less issue with target AC.

Honestly I agree with this. Sacrificing damage to trigger the effect is going to feel way better in play than trying to trigger it and missing will.

It's doubly annoying if, as Dr. Samurai and I noticed, you lose advantage even you would logically have advantage some other way, like the target being paralyzed/unconscious. Then you're suddenly the only character in the party who is able to miss the broad side of a barn, unless you go back to basic swing/grapple/etc.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, agreed as well. You need to be able to take advantage of other Advantage effects, or change the sacrifice to damage.

And I'm surprised grappling the enemy isn't included as an option. And then tossing that enemy.

[Amnestic]

Brutal Strike is a good step in the right direction, but the sacrifice of advantage leaves something to be desired.

I actually don't like monk getting Dex+Wis stats at max level - at least so long as barb AC is dex+con based instead of str+con. Either give monks con+wis (body+mind perfection) or make barb AC str+con (this is my preference, and my houserule)

[Oramac]

That's one way of looking at it... or you could look at it as a way to make Reckless Attacks more useful against targets with low AC or in situations where you get another source of advantage (depending on how your DM rules the ability, of course). It's not like you're forced to sacrifice the advantage, after all.

That is true, and I considered that. In all honesty, I suspect that's exactly what WOTC was thinking when they designed the feature too. But I don't like it for two reasons: first, losing all advantage is too harsh a sacrifice (though I suspect WOTC will change this in a later version), and second, I agree with Psyren that trading out Rage Damage for additional effects will be more fun during actual play.


Honestly I agree with this.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You and I agree on something? Surely this is a sign of the apocalypse!


It's doubly annoying if, as Dr. Samurai and I noticed, you lose advantage even you would logically have advantage some other way, like the target being paralyzed/unconscious. Then you're suddenly the only character in the party who is able to miss the broad side of a barn, unless you go back to basic swing/grapple/etc.


You need to be able to take advantage of other Advantage effects, or change the sacrifice to damage.

If they change it so you can still gain advantage from another source, I'd be more ok with it. Even with that change, I'd still prefer it sacrificed Rage Damage instead, but I could live with it in that form.

[Amechra]

Remember that Brutal Strike gives you bonus damage (+1d10 at 9th, +2d10 at 17th), which actually goes a long way towards compensating you for lost damage. There's also the fact that they scrapped the -5/+10 feats, so unless your table assumes that everyone has regular access to advantage on attack rolls you're going from "highly accurate" to "normal accuracy" and not "normal accuracy" to "Stormtrooper accuracy".

Like, I understand that people are scared of the fact that you're giving up The Almighty Advantage for a "free" maneuver because it's possible to use it wrong and lose *does some quick napkin math* 1-2 points of expected damage, but the fact that you can't just spam the Brutal Strike button every turn forever without thinking about it is good game design. If anything, the Barbarian needs more ways to trade their high reliability for more power, because it's a solid design paradigm that feels pretty distinct from what the other classes are putting on the table, in a way that "you have a solid buff that you can use X/long rest" doesn't.

...

EDIT: To be serious for a moment: people are wildly overestimating how good Advantage is without ways of trading your base accuracy for bonus damage. If I have a 70% chance to hit, advantage turns that into a 91% to hit (wow!)... but unless I'm dealing ~26 damage on average with that attack, adding +1d10 damage is going to deal more damage on average. And, in case people forgot the recent thread we had on this topic, WotC expects monster AC to scale way less than a lot of people seem to assume it does.

[Pex]

They nerfed Conjure Animals hard. It's now a poor man's Spirit Guardians and not as good. All the Conjure spells are now a variation of Spirit Guardians. "Conjure" is merely flavor text. They're porting the Tasha Summoning spells for the shtick. I don't mind the Summoning spells but better to just get rid of all the Conjure spells instead of making more versions of Spirit Guardians. Have one Spirit Guardians and scale rider effects in addition to damage based on level.

With bias I approve the buff to healing spells. It was needed in my opinion.

[Yakk]

The Owlbear (strength throwing reckless barbarian|rogue) works with current D&DOne as it allows strength-based throwing to get advantage on reckless.

You are no longer immune to surprise as a barbarian.

Heavy armor doesn't disable rage, it ends it.

Brutal Strike is pretty bad really, unless something is granting you advantage. 1d10 damage isn't worth loss of an extra attack die. The brutal strike effects are pedestrian, in line with effects you might expect from a cantrip.

It has more ways to regain rage; I guess this encourages using out of combat rage?

World Tree is a fun primal path.

I like the deflect attack as melee as well.

I also like the improved 1 Ki options. Bonus action for free, upgrade for Ki.

Extra Flurry is a much needed level 11 bump.

Healing got a big bump. HW is wis+5/slot level instead of wis+2.5/slot level. CW is wis+9/slot level instead of wis+4.5/slot level.

The Conjuration spells remind me of 4e zones. They lean too heavily on the damage component however.

[BRC]

I like Brutal Strike. 1d10 is pretty hefty, and there are plenty of situations where you expect to hit pretty reliably anyway. One of my Beefs with 5e is that there's fairly few things a martial character can do to change up their approach based on an enemy's defenses. Casters can pick between attacks and saves, but Martials have one play which is "See if you can get advantage, then hit it as hard as you can", and you apply that roughly equally to an armored knight (high AC, low health), an Ogre (Low AC, High Health), and a Caster (Low AC, Low Health, but you want to kill it dead really fast)

I appreciate any mechanic that introduces interesting choices mid-fight. Brutal Strike does so.

[Amechra]

1d10 damage isn't worth loss of an extra attack die.

For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

https://i.imgur.com/q2vuos4.png

Notice how the curve is really close up until around the 55% accuracy mark, and then +1d10 damage starts outpacing the extra attack die? That's the point where the +1d10 damage is, in fact, worth the loss of an extra attack die (especially since you're also getting a rider stapled onto the attack, so there's additional value stapled on top of the Brutal Strike damage that just relying on Advantage doesn't give you).

Now, sure, the chart is dependent on how much damage your attack deals, but it scales in a way that's honestly pretty favorable to Brutal Strike, given how low martial damage per attack tends to be without extra damage boosts and how high accuracy tends to be:

https://i.imgur.com/UAmolqx.png

That red line more-or-less marks the high-water mark for single-class Barbarian damage — you aren't generally going to be dealing much more than ~20 damage per attack without some serious optimization — and the extra attack die still falls behind once you hit 75% accuracy.

[P. G. Macer]

For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

https://i.imgur.com/q2vuos4.png

Notice how the curve is really close up until around the 55% accuracy mark, and then +1d10 damage starts outpacing the extra attack die? That's the point where the +1d10 damage is, in fact, worth the loss of an extra attack die (especially since you're also getting a rider stapled onto the attack, so there's additional value stapled on top of the Brutal Strike damage that just relying on Advantage doesn't give you).

Now, sure, the chart is dependent on how much damage your attack deals, but it scales in a way that's honestly pretty favorable to Brutal Strike, given how low martial damage per attack tends to be without extra damage boosts and how high accuracy tends to be:

https://i.imgur.com/UAmolqx.png

That red line more-or-less marks the high-water mark for single-class Barbarian damage — you aren't generally going to be dealing much more than ~20 damage per attack without some serious optimization — and the extra attack die still falls behind once you hit 75% accuracy.

Friendly reminder *points at your signature*

[Amechra]

Friendly reminder *points at your signature*

Is it really the nitty-gritty if it took me 10 minutes to calculate? :smalltongue:

(But yeah, that's my signal to dip.)

[Oramac]

For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

snip

Thank you for this. I will admit, I didn't realize the extra d10 would make that much of a difference.

That said, it really doesn't address my main concern. Namely, that missing an attack is not fun. And as written Brutal Strikes encourages a player (who likely does not have the data we have) to reduce their chance to hit without understanding it. Which is to say, it encourages the player to risk missing and doing nothing more often.

Trading out rage damage instead of advantage for the additional effect solves my main concern. For better or worse, it prioritizes fun (hitting) over not fun (missing).

[Damon_Tor]

I REALLY don't want to have to keep a table for when a monster's AC is low enough to warrant losing advantage to gain +1d10. Its GWM all over again.

Brutal Strike could be changed to something like: "When you attack a creature with advantage, if both attack rolls would hit that creature, the attack deals an extra 1d10 damage and you can choose one of the following effects..."

It would keep synergy with reckless attack instead of just eliminating the feature.

[Mastikator]

The funny thing about brutal strike is that it removes advantage from reckless attack. But you could still have advantage from other sources, like the target being prone. Given that barbarians will get weapon mastery and one of those is to make a target prone I wonder if brutal strike is underrated.

Even if you never get to benefit from both I think it's a massive improvement.

It also applies to every attack, so a barbarian with PAM will benefit from it even more.
On the other hand it seems to go against the trend of "once per turn when you hit" style of bonus damage like GWM and berzerker rage.

[Kane0]

I think a smoother way of handling it would have been 'if you have advantage and both rolls would hit'

[Psyren]

The funny thing about brutal strike is that it removes advantage from reckless attack. But you could still have advantage from other sources, like the target being prone. Given that barbarians will get weapon mastery and one of those is to make a target prone I wonder if brutal strike is underrated.

That's how I originally read it too, and how I think a lot of people are going to read it. But as written, it turns off all advantage on that attack, almost like you got slapped with disadvantage, regardless of the conditions on the target.


I REALLY don't want to have to keep a table for when a monster's AC is low enough to warrant losing advantage to gain +1d10. Its GWM all over again.

Brutal Strike could be changed to something like: "When you attack a creature with advantage, if both attack rolls would hit that creature, the attack deals an extra 1d10 damage and you can choose one of the following effects..."

It would keep synergy with reckless attack instead of just eliminating the feature.

Ooh I love this idea too. Best part is that even when the "Brutal" misses due to one roll missing, you likely still hit and did something that round. This is going right in my survey.

The only downside though is its entirely passive - you can't choose to try for an extra effect, it just happens if you got lucky doing the thing you were already doing. This has the potential to slow down play if all you want to do is damage and now you have to check the list to see if there's something else you should be doing, similar to how a rogue can just ignore cunning strike when they're going for raw output.

[Damon_Tor]

For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

https://i.imgur.com/q2vuos4.png

Notice how the curve is really close up until around the 55% accuracy mark, and then +1d10 damage starts outpacing the extra attack die? That's the point where the +1d10 damage is, in fact, worth the loss of an extra attack die (especially since you're also getting a rider stapled onto the attack, so there's additional value stapled on top of the Brutal Strike damage that just relying on Advantage doesn't give you).

Now, sure, the chart is dependent on how much damage your attack deals, but it scales in a way that's honestly pretty favorable to Brutal Strike, given how low martial damage per attack tends to be without extra damage boosts and how high accuracy tends to be:

https://i.imgur.com/UAmolqx.png

That red line more-or-less marks the high-water mark for single-class Barbarian damage — you aren't generally going to be dealing much more than ~20 damage per attack without some serious optimization — and the extra attack die still falls behind once you hit 75% accuracy.

This sort of thing is exactly why I hated GWM, and now it's a class feature, built into the class that (in my mind anyway) should be the one most likely to just want to bash things without thinking about it too hard. Now we've got a situation where the optimal way to play a barbarian is to track monster AC and keep an updated spreadsheet with their current damage-per-hit and attack bonuses to determine when to use brutal strike.

[Bosh]

With regard to the changes to summoning/conjuring it seems part of a trend in the playtest to make flavor matter less. For example if you summon some wolves they can do some off-label things that you'd expect wolves to be able to do, because they're freaking wolves and can do whatever a wolf can do. With the new rules for conjuring that is getting limited strongly as flavor gets cut back. This isn't going that way as strongly as 4e where you could famously trip a gelatinous cube but it's heading in that direction.


For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

https://i.imgur.com/q2vuos4.png

Notice how the curve is really close up until around the 55% accuracy mark, and then +1d10 damage starts outpacing the extra attack die? That's the point where the +1d10 damage is, in fact, worth the loss of an extra attack die (especially since you're also getting a rider stapled onto the attack, so there's additional value stapled on top of the Brutal Strike damage that just relying on Advantage doesn't give you).

Now, sure, the chart is dependent on how much damage your attack deals, but it scales in a way that's honestly pretty favorable to Brutal Strike, given how low martial damage per attack tends to be without extra damage boosts and how high accuracy tends to be:

https://i.imgur.com/UAmolqx.png

That red line more-or-less marks the high-water mark for single-class Barbarian damage — you aren't generally going to be dealing much more than ~20 damage per attack without some serious optimization — and the extra attack die still falls behind once you hit 75% accuracy.

One advantage to getting advantage is that it's less likely to produce overkill.


We are getting that with rogue though; All 4 of the new subclasses interact with Sneak Attack via Cunning Strike options and/or mods. It seems likely that will be a design mandate for the class as a whole moving forward - at least for any new subclasses.

Yup, that's good for rogues but it does push them more into the sniper/assassin camp than the rogue camp. My favorite thing about rogues in 5e is Thief rogue fast hand shenanigans and I wish I could get more of that kind of thing. Also with rogue sneak attack I don't think it has quit the oomph to bring rogues up to par with paladins or the new buffed monk which is sad.

Also while "trade in sneak attack dice to get riders to your attack" is nice and all it feels less unique with weapon masteries doing similar things and barbarians now having "trade advantage to get riders to your attack." Would like classes to be more distinct if possible.


I don't know what you mean by "VERY VERY good at inspiration and wildshape." Inspiration is just a dice pool; some subclasses do indeed use it to build on what the base inspiration ability does (e.g. Eloquence and Creation), and others treat it purely as an extra resource (e.g. Whispers and Spirits.) Neither approach is wrong, and having both means more design space.

Right, but Inspiration can't really be the focus of a bard character because full casting eats up so much of the bard's power budget. If you knocked them down to half casters or so (like in older editions) then you could buff inspiration into a more powerful and class-defining mechanic without bards feeling overpowered rather than them being mostly Just Another Full Caster.


Similarly, only one druid needs to be "VERY VERY good at wildshape" and that's Moon. Maybe we'll get another for e.g. plants or elementals or even dragons later on, but for now we're good.

Same thing for druids. If you knocked them down to half casters you could make them Shapeshifters: the Class rather than Yet Another Fullcaster With a Minor Shapeshifting Sideline (except moon druids). I think one reason druids don't get played more is that there really isn't a lot of popular fantasy archetypes that match the D&D druid class, if they focused in more on shapeshifting they'd work better for people who wanted to play a werewolf in D&D etc.


We got that, via them increasing the sorcerer's spells known and giving them a bunch of free spells + changing Magic Initiate so you can pick up even more. You have a lot more leeway as a DS to pick up cleric magic. I'm just really unclear on what it is you actually want.

Well the other half of what I want is stripped out stuff ASIDE from spellcasting as I tend to like simpler systems (in terms of number of rules you have to learn, not necessarily tactical complexity). Stuff like having spells (in which you channel divine power to do magical things) and channel divinity (in which you ALSO channel divine power to do magical things) and the like seem needlessly redundant to me.

Make each class's One Cool Thing interesting enough by itself that they don't need a bunch of other features to keep track of.

[crayonshinchuck]

This sort of thing is exactly why I hated GWM, and now it's a class feature, built into the class that (in my mind anyway) should be the one most likely to just want to bash things without thinking about it too hard. Now we've got a situation where the optimal way to play a barbarian is to track monster AC and keep an updated spreadsheet with their current damage-per-hit and attack bonuses to determine when to use brutal strike.

But if I am interpreting the data in the chart correctly, the difference in expected damage even when the Brutal Strike is less optimal is minimal, isn't it? I'd expect that in many cases it really won't be the extra d10 damage that the person choosing this wants (to have optimal damage), but the supplementary effect.

[Boverk]

With regards to new brutal strike, I'd like to tweak the language to make it so that you can choose for reckless attacks to not give you advantage and then the rest as is.

This would let you get advantage from other sources if you have them, as opposed to negating all advantage.

[Dr.Samurai]

This sort of thing is exactly why I hated GWM, and now it's a class feature, built into the class that (in my mind anyway) should be the one most likely to just want to bash things without thinking about it too hard. Now we've got a situation where the optimal way to play a barbarian is to track monster AC and keep an updated spreadsheet with their current damage-per-hit and attack bonuses to determine when to use brutal strike.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. There's already a determination to use Reckless Attack or not; how hard the enemy is to hit, and how many attacks you think will come your way while you're granting Advantage to hit you. Now we're adding another layer, which may not see like a lot, but I do actually think it will halt a turn for a moment or two. And part of the reason I play barbarians is because of their simplicity.

That said... does it need to be a sacrifice? Would it be too strong to simply allow this stuff with any Reckless Attack? You're already granting Advantage to all enemies that attack you. Would a straight buff to Reckless Attack at later levels be too much? (Also, I'm surprised that Grappling is not a Brutal Strike option, and then throwing a grappled opponent.)

Is it too strong if at the same level that casters are gaining 5th, 7th, and 9th level spells, Barbarians can push someone back on a standard Reckless Attack without sacrificing accuracy, or knock them prone, or Grab them, etc.? (Should this text be in blue?)

[Psyren]

Is it too strong if at the same level that casters are gaining 5th, 7th, and 9th level spells, Barbarians can push someone back on a standard Reckless Attack without sacrificing accuracy, or knock them prone, or Grab them, etc.? (Should this text be in blue?)

I don't think it would be too strong per se... well, infinite Heightened Spell for an ally every round might be too strong... but I could see it bogging down play if every single round the DM had to ask the Barbarian "are you doing something extra with that swing?"



Yup, that's good for rogues but it does push them more into the sniper/assassin camp than the rogue camp. My favorite thing about rogues in 5e is Thief rogue fast hand shenanigans and I wish I could get more of that kind of thing. Also with rogue sneak attack I don't think it has quit the oomph to bring rogues up to par with paladins or the new buffed monk which is sad.

I want more interesting subclasses too. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want.
However, Core is getting exactly 4 per class, so if you want more than that you'll have to wait. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask.



Right, but Inspiration can't really be the focus of a bard character because full casting eats up so much of the bard's power budget. If you knocked them down to half casters or so (like in older editions) then you could buff inspiration into a more powerful and class-defining mechanic without bards feeling overpowered rather than them being mostly Just Another Full Caster.

Okay, help me follow your logic here. "If Bards were half-casters they'd have more class budget for other things." Yet when you go back to 3.5, where they were half-casters - can you tell me what that so-called extra budget was used on? The class itself was just a lame unfocused dilettante, a literal punchline. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html) Most builds for them after core, in order to make Bards worthwhile, bolted on ancillary things to try and make them interesting or effective, like Dragonfire Inspiration, or Snowflake Wardance, or just plain decided that hey, actually it would be better if they were full casters (Sublime Chord.) Because as it turns out, in a team of specialists, being the "dabbler class" who is a little bit good at everything adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

Maybe you were totally fine with that and want Bards to go back there. I'm not, and I don't.


Same thing for druids. If you knocked them down to half casters you could make them Shapeshifters: the Class rather than Yet Another Fullcaster With a Minor Shapeshifting Sideline (except moon druids). I think one reason druids don't get played more is that there really isn't a lot of popular fantasy archetypes that match the D&D druid class, if they focused in more on shapeshifting they'd work better for people who wanted to play a werewolf in D&D etc.

I'm totally in favor of "Shapeshifters: The Class." Why does that have to be Druid though? There's plenty of design space for a brand new martial class that does that after 2024 core. And I guarantee that no matter when they make that book, enough people will buy it to be worth the design time; Beast Barbarian's popularity alone proves that. And I remember Paizo fans going bonkers for their Shifter too. (Well, they did until they read the finished product, but still, it was pretty exciting for a while there.)

[Foxhound438]

The way brutal strike reads makes it seem ambiguous as to whether you get the effect only on the first attack (when you decide to attack recklessly, making your attacks until your next turn yada yada you know) or on each attack (my first attack is "using" reckless attack, and my second attack is also "using" reckless attack). From a balance perspective, especially once you get to the +2d10 version, it obviously should be only the first attack, but you know "that guy" is going to try to abuse the language and throw a fit over it if anyone countermands them. That said, it's probably fine in terms of the numbers applying to both attacks once you get to higher levels, but adding in polearm master or something could make it pretty overwhelming.

battering roots adding another weapon mastery effect on top of potentially already having one means the DM now has to make two saving throws after every attack from this guy. Wow, fun. My problem with weapon masteries has always been the feeling that the DM is always going to have to slow down and keep rolling the same saving throws a hundred times every session. It just seems so tedious, even as a player because it means more time throwing dice and counting in between turns.

basically everything in monk seems pretty good. Still a bit of a loss to not have access to astral projection, but the execution on the rest of the base class seems good. Going up to d6 -> d12 in damage is a nice little boost, and having a third attack from flurry at 10th helps keep monks in line with other martial classes in terms of damage progression. The capstone is a little uninteresting, but it's at least worth having and not guaranteed to be a place to jump out of the class for a die of sneak attack damage or something.
my big gripe with the last iteration is still the total gutting of everything fun from way of shadows in favor of darkness cheese, which it sounds like they weren't going to change. I'll probably proceed to never play monk again if that's still the case when the books come out.

turning all of the conjure spells into sustained area damage spells is lazy, but at least allows them to be balanced.

fount of moonlight is a nice ranger equivalent of the paladin's spirit shroud.

the healing spells being upgraded is very nice, but probably makes life cleric's benefits less impactful

[Bosh]

I want more interesting subclasses too. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want.
However, Core is getting exactly 4 per class, so if you want more than that you'll have to wait. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask.

Don't really want more subclasses so much as subclasses with designs I like better. Some of the subclasses we've seen have had issues. Their first idea for my beloved thief rogue was the utterly gut it's most interesting feature (fast hands), I'm thankful that was rolled back but haven't seen anything that makes them really shine so far. Out of all classes rogues are arguably the weakest now with other weaker classes getting buffs, so it's not like they could've have given rogue subclasses more oomph to bring the overall class up to par (as what happened with the ranger with Gloomstalker etc.)

Then there's other issues like the Ygdrassil barbarian, which has me scratching my head a bit since never have I heard of anyone wanting that kind of barbarian in any version of D&D. It's not BAD per se just it seems like it's really really niche instead of a really iconic version of barbarian that'd appeal to a lot of people right out of the gate.


Okay, help me follow your logic here. "If Bards were half-casters they'd have more class budget for other things." Yet when you go back to 3.5, where they were half-casters - can you tell me what that so-called extra budget was used on? The class itself was just a lame unfocused dilettante, a literal punchline. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html) Most builds for them after core, in order to make Bards worthwhile, bolted on ancillary things to try and make them interesting or effective, like Dragonfire Inspiration, or Snowflake Wardance, or just plain decided that hey, actually it would be better if they were full casters (Sublime Chord.) Because as it turns out, in a team of specialists, being the "dabbler class" who is a little bit good at everything adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

Well 3.5ed had a lot of **** design (although the bard class wasn't THAT bad if you exclude full casters since just about every non-full caster in 3.5ed was rather ****) so I won't defend that. For a jack of all trades class, bards worked pretty well in 2e since they needed less XP than other classes to level up. Don't like the 5e version of bards since if you want to go jack of all trades with them they really shouldn't be the master of any one thing (which being full casters makes them).

But then I'm not especially wedded to bards as jacks of all trades and would like to go all in for the inspiration route and merge in some of 4e's warlord so that them being a leader/source of inspiration of the party is powerful enough to bring them on par with other classes without full casting. That'd make bards feel unique.


I'm totally in favor of "Shapeshifters: The Class." Why does that have to be Druid though? There's plenty of design space for a brand new martial class that does that after 2024 core.

Well WotC has been VERY reluctant to make new classes in the 5e era so I wouldn't count on that going forward.

As to why druids, well because (IIRC) in surveys they rank dead last in terms of how many people play them. They started out as a cleric subclass way back in TSR days and they've never really carved out their own conceptual niche beyond "nature clerics" which is a really really narrow bit of mindspace compared to say "wizard" or "rogue." Just don't think that the kind of character archetypes that druids cater to are broad enough to be worth more than a cleric subclass.

Think that shapeshifting has broad enough appeal to be a class that more people would be interested. Aside from that I like having more distinct classes, and the 5e druid doesn't feel distinct enough to me.

[Foxhound438]

- Superior Defense/Body and Mind: And here’s the problem. These two make the Monk a better barbarian than the barbarian. This monk is effectively the 2014 Bear Totem barb with 5 attacks (plus possibly haste) and a 26 AC (10 plus 8 dex and 8 wis). Hard pass.


The critical difference between super defense and bear barb is that bear barb is at level 3. Level 1 and 2 are probably between 0 and 2 sessions for like 75% of campaigns, where levels 18 through 20 are probably 0 sessions for 90%, and it's at the end where you're supposed to be getting OP to the point of killing universe level threats, not five goblins in a cave somewhere because you think they have 35 gold and a bucket of dried fish in there. Also, there's the discrepancy of weapon options. I'm not sure if the existing GWM and PAM are on the table for the 2024 books, but those together make up more than the difference that two extra unarmed strikes make if they're in.


I think a smoother way of handling it would have been 'if you have advantage and both rolls would hit'

feels like world of darkness and how having "advantage" like situations gives you more dice you can get successes on. In any case, I agree it's a good idea for a barbarian ability. nb4 it gets slapped on every class as an archetype feature within a year.

[Dr.Samurai]

I see the Spec-tranimals are still going strong in these new conjuration spells. I don't even play spellcasters all that much and these offend even me. Would people really prefer these zone "presences" to actually summoning a creature or creatures with stats?

Wizard: *summons spectral wolf* Don't come any closer or my wolf will attack you!
Enemy: Uh... what is that weird animal shaped blob of light?
Wizard: It's my wolf, and if you come any closer it will shoot a laser at you!



And I recall 3.5 bards being pretty sick. Granting my fighters a +12 to attacks/damage and saves vs Fear/Charm effects was *chef's kiss*.

[Psyren]

For a jack of all trades class, bards worked pretty well in 2e since they needed less XP than other classes to level up.

That's it, leveling faster? So if this were translated to the modern game, your reward for being a dilettante would be... making more work for the DM by messing up their encounter math :smalltongue:


Don't like the 5e version of bards since if you want to go jack of all trades with them they really shouldn't be the master of any one thing (which being full casters makes them).

But it doesn't. Their spellcasting is tall, sure, but a lot narrower than every other class. And frankly, anybody can be decent at skills now, even before OneD&D.


But then I'm not especially wedded to bards as jacks of all trades and would like to go all in for the inspiration route and merge in some of 4e's warlord so that them being a leader/source of inspiration of the party is powerful enough to bring them on par with other classes without full casting. That'd make bards feel unique.

Your "unique" ideas keep sacrificing the things that currently make the class great. An inspiring Warlord class or subclass would be fine, I hope they make one. But if getting that means giving up my current magical bards that channel the Words of Creation, Warlord can kick rocks until some later book. Same for Shifter - it's a fine martial idea, but if it means I can't have my nature priest that calls down lightning and raises tidal waves and volcanoes, Shifter can kick rocks for now too.


Well WotC has been VERY reluctant to make new classes in the 5e era so I wouldn't count on that going forward.

Haven't you heard, D&D is undermonetized :smalltongue: have a bit of faith.

[ZRN]

I see the Spec-tranimals are still going strong in these new conjuration spells. I don't even play spellcasters all that much and these offend even me. Would people really prefer these zone "presences" to actually summoning a creature or creatures with stats?

I think the key point is that they're already fixing real summoning by adding in the Summon X spells to the PHB. That made the PHB Conjure X spells redundant so they're repurposing them to something else.

[Aimeryan]

I REALLY don't want to have to keep a table for when a monster's AC is low enough to warrant losing advantage to gain +1d10. Its GWM all over again.

Brutal Strike could be changed to something like: "When you attack a creature with advantage, if both attack rolls would hit that creature, the attack deals an extra 1d10 damage and you can choose one of the following effects..."

It would keep synergy with reckless attack instead of just eliminating the feature.

It essentially is, but weaker - d10 instead of 10, no ability to get Advantage from another source to make up for it.
I do love that we have people like Treantmonk doing calculations with a 60% base accuracy, then we have the cross-over point for this being at 75% (before Advantage).
We probably need to figure out what the mode is and what the standard deviation from that for base accuracy to really discuss these things.

I do agree though, if you are fighting a score of mobs 7 CR below you, maybe Brutal Strike isn't such a hard sell.

[Mastikator]

It essentially is, but weaker - d10 instead of 10, no ability to get Advantage from another source to make up for it.
I do love that we have people like Treantmonk doing calculations with a 60% base accuracy, then we have the cross-over point for this being at 75% (before Advantage).
We probably need to figure out what the mode is and what the standard deviation from that for base accuracy to really discuss these things.

I do agree though, if you are fighting a score of mobs 7 CR below you, maybe Brutal Strike isn't such a hard sell.

You don't have to use it though. You might be fighting a high AC enemy and their low AC friend, you pick the better option for each reckless attack. The fact that there's an AC where brutal strike doesn't benefit you doesn't make it a bad feature, it just means you have a choice.

[Haggo]

That's it, leveling faster? So if this were translated to the modern game, your reward for being a dilettante would be... making more work for the DM by messing up their encounter math :smalltongue:



But it doesn't. Their spellcasting is tall, sure, but a lot narrower than every other class. And frankly, anybody can be decent at skills now, even before OneD&D.



Your "unique" ideas keep sacrificing the things that currently make the class great. An inspiring Warlord class or subclass would be fine, I hope they make one. But if getting that means giving up my current magical bards that channel the Words of Creation, Warlord can kick rocks until some later book. Same for Shifter - it's a fine martial idea, but if it means I can't have my nature priest that calls down lightning and raises tidal waves and volcanoes, Shifter can kick rocks for now too.



Haven't you heard, D&D is undermonetized :smalltongue: have a bit of faith.

Personally I'd do the opposite, I'd rather kill druid and bard to get Warlord and shifter. Or maybe just remove Druid's shapeshifting and just have it be the element and plants caster.

[Oramac]

I think the key point is that they're already fixing real summoning by adding in the Summon X spells to the PHB. That made the PHB Conjure X spells redundant so they're repurposing them to something else.

This. Jeremy Crawford said as much in their UA8 video. Essentially, the Summon X spells are the new summoning spells, and the Conjure X spells are being included for posterity.


It essentially is, but weaker - d10 instead of 10, no ability to get Advantage from another source to make up for it.
I do love that we have people like Treantmonk doing calculations with a 60% base accuracy, then we have the cross-over point for this being at 75% (before Advantage).
We probably need to figure out what the mode is and what the standard deviation from that for base accuracy to really discuss these things.

Just my opinion, but the fact that we even need to discuss this makes it a bad feature. We (the optimizers) are a VERY small subset of the people playing D&D. The average player doesn't know nor care about all of that. I'm all for impactful choices, but the choices shouldn't require a spreadsheet to make the right decision.

[Psyren]

Personally I'd do the opposite, I'd rather kill druid and bard to get Warlord and shifter. Or maybe just remove Druid's shapeshifting and just have it be the element and plants caster.

We can have all four! They just wouldn't all be in core. What would be wrong with that?



Just my opinion, but the fact that we even need to discuss this makes it a bad feature. We (the optimizers) are a VERY small subset of the people playing D&D. The average player doesn't know nor care about all of that. I'm all for impactful choices, but the choices shouldn't require a spreadsheet to make the right decision.

Agreed again - and worse, when those player mess up (which they will) this feature is going to feel triple bad. Because not only did you fail to do the maneuver you wanted to do, you failed to hit entirely and thus wasted that whole swing, AND you're still eating the penalty to your defense.

(On the plus side though, this feature would make Graze weapons more appealing.)

[stoutstien]

A few good ideas overall but it all seems like a major shift into a procedural (probably a better word) design mindsets which was already a major potential problem with 5e design. It's not even trying to hide the the preset play choices.

But hey bigger numbers so the vast majority of players will be happy.

[solidork]

I'm personally pretty happy with Brutal Strike as it is, but if it was going to change... would it be too much to just... not give up anything for Brutal Strike? Like, take away the extra damage, but making an ability that already has a built in drawback stronger doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Right now the decision tree for Reckless Attack is just gambling on doing more damage in exchange for taking more damage. Adding these riders would increase the number of situations where you'd want to take that risk because you're interested in the rider effect. I guess you are also getting the extra effects in situations where you'd be using reckless anyways, but the effects you get aren't always super relevant.

Maybe you make it once per turn to limit things a bit?

[Psyren]

I'm personally pretty happy with Brutal Strike as it is, but if it was going to change... would it be too much to just... not give up anything for Brutal Strike? Like, take away the extra damage, but making an ability that already has a built in drawback stronger doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Right now the decision tree for Reckless Attack is just gambling on doing more damage in exchange for taking more damage. Adding these riders would increase the number of situations where you'd want to take that risk because you're interested in the rider effect. I guess you are also getting the extra effects in situations where you'd be using reckless anyways, but the effects you get aren't always super relevant.

Maybe you make it once per turn to limit things a bit?

The extra damage you'd take from RA is already offset by rage itself though, which grants physical damage resistance - the most common kind you'd be exposed to in melee. Most Barbarians will be combining RA and Rage, especially at level 9 and especially now that Rage lasts longer and can be recovered intraday. So I can understand them wanting another offset for this ability - but turning off all your advantage (not just the advantage from RA itself) is too harsh.

[Amechra]

Right now the decision tree for Reckless Attack is just gambling on doing more damage in exchange for taking more damage. Adding these riders would increase the number of situations where you'd want to take that risk because you're interested in the rider effect. I guess you are also getting the extra effects in situations where you'd be using reckless anyways, but the effects you get aren't always super relevant.

This is why Brutal Strike is an interesting feature, honestly. It takes the core gamble of the Barbarian (which is honestly the interesting part of playing a Barbarian — tanking a bunch of damage thanks to Rage is fun but not terribly interesting from a tactical perspective) and broadens the number of situations where it's going to be useful without making it feel obligatory like it would if it gave you bonus damage on top of Reckless Attack.

...

I know I said I'd dip but boy howdy this thread.



People say "I dunno if trading advantage for damage is worth it".
I post a graph showing that yeah, it generally is. (I made the graph because it's honestly really fun to make graphs in Excel.)
People start complaining that they need a chart to know when it's optimal to use the feature.


Guys, the heuristic is dirt simple:



If you're really worried about giving your enemies advantage to hit you, don't Reckless Attack.
If you were already really likely to hit, Brutal Strike for that sweet bonus damage (heck yeah!).
If you're not sure, do you want to make sure you hit, or do you want to gamble for a shove/hinder/set-up?

If you feel like hitting's important, just keep the advantage.
If you want to gamble, gamble.



Done. That's it. If you follow that, you're using Brutal Strike in more-or-less the optimal way. If you're losing sleep over the fractions of a point of expected damage that you lose because you used Brutal Strike below the break-even threshold... don't?


but turning off all your advantage (not just the advantage from RA itself) is too harsh.

I've been thinking about this, and... I'm not sure that it is? It's not like anything that gives you advantage would stack with Reckless Attack normally, so if anything it's just maintaining the status quo.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think people were already saying it's a less fun feature before your chart when up. Your chart was addressing one comment, which is fine (the chart is useful by the way, thank you).

But it doesn't address the fact that if you have a choice to be more accurate, you can forego it to do something else, and then you might just miss your attack after that decision. Which doesn't feel great. Reckless Attack currently feels great because it's at-will Advantage generation. If you get hit, you get hit, but as a frontliner you expect to take hits, and you have Resistance to buttress that cost.

But using Reckless Attack in a way that might make you miss doesn't feel great.

Also, and this is just my own personal preference... these things that Brutal Strike can do seem like things that warriors might be able to do anyways without having to sacrifice stuff. I mean, the battle master can do this stuff, anyone with weapon mastery can do most of this stuff. So it seems a little cheap as well to add a feature to the barbarian but make it cost one of their signature features to do it.

So on a practical note, I appreciate the option to do more with a barbarian. But on a fun note, I don't want more decision making, and on a narrative note, it's fine to be reckless and take more hits because you are hitting more, and this will result in more misses but still getting hit more.

EDIT: I think changing the wording on this (and how it works) might go a long way. Something like: When you use Reckless Attack, you can now choose to give yourself Advantage on your melee attacks, or you can choose to make a Brutal Strike...

Something along those lines. That way you're not sacrificing AC and to-hit just to push someone or knock them prone, which seems like a steep price to pay, especially given how prolific these push/prone abilities are now becoming.

[Darth Credence]

...
But it doesn't address the fact that if you have a choice to be more accurate, you can forego it to do something else, and then you might just miss your attack after that decision. Which doesn't feel great. Reckless Attack currently feels great because it's at-will Advantage generation. If you get hit, you get hit, but as a frontliner you expect to take hits, and you have Resistance to buttress that cost.

But using Reckless Attack in a way that might make you miss doesn't feel great.

I don't get this. To me, saying that one might miss doesn't feel great is not much different than saying if there's a chance I might lose it doesn't feel great. It reminds me of playing pretend as a small child and the one kid who whenever someone else said they hit them, they would say, "Nuh-uh, I have a magic ability to dodge your attack, and then I hit you back and you fall down".

I'm going to miss some attacks that I probably should have hit. Once every 400 or so tries, you're going to get double 1s on an advantage attack, and will miss. But about that often, you'll get double 20s on a disadvantage attack, and you'll feel like the avatar of luck as everyone cheers. You will never know for sure if you would have hit if you hadn't sacrificed advantage, and you'll never know if you would have hit anyway if you did and delivered more damage. So, for me, I think is the best shot in a given round, and if that means I go for the extra damage and fail, it won't feel not great to me, it will feel like any other round where I didn't hit. I'll wish I did, but I won't feel bad, I'll just keep playing the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't get this. To me, saying that one might miss doesn't feel great is not much different than saying if there's a chance I might lose it doesn't feel great. It reminds me of playing pretend as a small child and the one kid who whenever someone else said they hit them, they would say, "Nuh-uh, I have a magic ability to dodge your attack, and then I hit you back and you fall down".
That's not what I'm saying.

Missing is a fact of life when playing the game. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the barbarian having to use their "increase accuracy" feature to make a brutal strike, and to use it they have to "decrease accuracy" instead. So now you might miss because of your own actions. It's just player psychology. Missing because the die fell on a 3 is not the same as missing because you chose to roll 1 die when you could have rolled 2.

And I don't agree that "the gamble" is the fun in playing a barbarian. I think the consistent accuracy, toughness, and strength (grapple/push) is the fun in being a barbarian. And giving up a key feature of the class (at-will advantage) to use brutal strike doesn't seem right to me.

[Oramac]

I'm talking about the barbarian having to use their "increase accuracy" feature to make a brutal strike, and to use it they have to "decrease accuracy" instead. So now you might miss because of your own actions. It's just player psychology. Missing because the die fell on a 3 is not the same as missing because you chose to roll 1 die when you could have rolled 2.

And I don't agree that "the gamble" is the fun in playing a barbarian. I think the consistent accuracy, toughness, and strength (grapple/push) is the fun in being a barbarian. And giving up a key feature of the class (at-will advantage) to use brutal strike doesn't seem right to me.

QFT. This is my thought as well.

[titi]

Personnaly I think brutal strike is very flavorfull :
You're being reckless by throwing away your defense, and now even more reckless by throwing away your precision, all to do more damage (and a rider). Feels very barbarian to me

[Darth Credence]

That's not what I'm saying.

Missing is a fact of life when playing the game. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the barbarian having to use their "increase accuracy" feature to make a brutal strike, and to use it they have to "decrease accuracy" instead. So now you might miss because of your own actions. It's just player psychology. Missing because the die fell on a 3 is not the same as missing because you chose to roll 1 die when you could have rolled 2.

And I don't agree that "the gamble" is the fun in playing a barbarian. I think the consistent accuracy, toughness, and strength (grapple/push) is the fun in being a barbarian. And giving up a key feature of the class (at-will advantage) to use brutal strike doesn't seem right to me.

That may not be your intention when you wrote the post, but it is absolutely the takeaway I get when I read it. Even your clarification here gives me the same takeaway - players shouldn't have to sacrifice anything, because it doesn't feel great to not be winning.

[Dr.Samurai]

That may not be your intention when you wrote the post, but it is absolutely the takeaway I get when I read it. Even your clarification here gives me the same takeaway - players shouldn't have to sacrifice anything, because it doesn't feel great to not be winning.
Dr. Samurai - Reckless Attack is great!
Darth Credence - So you're saying players shouldn't have to sacrifice anything because it doesn't feel great to not be winning.
Dr. Samurai - *checks to confirm that Reckless Attack still requires sacrificing your Armor Class* Yep, it does. Hmm... I wonder if your absolute takeaways from what I'm saying might require a reevaluation...

I get you don't agree with me. That's fine. But I'm not saying players shouldn't sacrifice anything or whatever other mischaracterizations might come forward. I was praising Cunning Strike when the rogue was released as well, and that requires a sacrifice as well.

[Mastikator]

That's not what I'm saying.

Missing is a fact of life when playing the game. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the barbarian having to use their "increase accuracy" feature to make a brutal strike, and to use it they have to "decrease accuracy" instead. So now you might miss because of your own actions. It's just player psychology. Missing because the die fell on a 3 is not the same as missing because you chose to roll 1 die when you could have rolled 2.

And I don't agree that "the gamble" is the fun in playing a barbarian. I think the consistent accuracy, toughness, and strength (grapple/push) is the fun in being a barbarian. And giving up a key feature of the class (at-will advantage) to use brutal strike doesn't seem right to me.

It's not a gamble, it's a strategic choice. When you attack with reckless attack you decide if you prefer higher hit rate more damage + effect when you hit. It's VERY similar to the rogue's cunning strike ability. Except instead of trading damage for effect you're trading accuracy for damage and effect. I'm pretty sure you agree that it's a massive step up from the ribbon feature that is brutal critical, but I can't see why you think the option of tactical effects in combat isn't good.

[Moxxmix]

In addition to Amechra's graphs on Brutal Strike, I'd done some of my own math. Have another graph.

https://i.imgur.com/AUi9f5o.png

The damage is based on a 1d12+9 calculation, because that's what someone else used when I first saw someone running a comparison. It's slightly off at various levels. At level 9 it should be +8 (20 Str and +3 Rage). It goes up to +9 at level 16, and then +10 at 19, and +12 at 20. I don't feel like fiddling with all that, though, as it doesn't really matter for these purposes.

Compared to Amechra's chart, I get the crossover point at 65% base accuracy (needing to roll an 8 or higher on the d20), rather than around 50%.

The choice between advantage and 1d10 can vary for which is technically better, though even the largest difference favoring advantage (at around 30%-35% base hit rate) is only about 1.6 points. Most of the time (between 50% and 75% hit rates) the difference is going to be about 1 point or less.

2d10 damage is always at least as good as advantage, and usually much better.


I don't think a special chart is needed for deciding whether to use it. The point where I'd consider it somewhat significant to consider keeping advantage is at a 40% or lower base accuracy (ie: needing to roll a 13 or higher on the d20) during levels 9-16. That means a target AC of 22 or 23 at levels 9 and 13 (not counting magic weapons or other boosts), and ACs that high are not very common at those levels.

Aside from that, you may want to keep advantage to cancel out a disadvantage such as blindness. However that's not a question of the target, just of circumstances. Otherwise it's just a question of whether one of the effects will be useful for you.

Overall:

At level 9, it's useful for tactics, or just fun. Though there's a bit of variation depending on the target, the damage is similar across almost all relevant accuracy levels, so it's only a question of what you want to do.

At level 13, it's useful for the party in lots of ways. If you're willing to take the risk of Reckless Attack in the first place, it's almost always worth going for one of the effects.

At level 17 it's a no-brainer. You'll always do substantially more damage, and being able to apply two special effects makes it even more useful.


Edit: Also, here's a chart including the Graze weapon mastery.

https://i.imgur.com/B5dAj1W.png

It mostly raises the low end of the curves, and doesn't gain as much when used with advantage, so there's very little benefit to taking advantage instead of Brutal Strike.

[Oramac]

trading accuracy for damage and effect.

Hmm. It occurs to me that Brutal Strike may be a subtle way for WOTC to give barbarians the 2014 Great Weapon Master without actually saying so.

We know that advantage is (generally) the same as a +5 to your roll, and Brutal Strike adds 1d10 damage. So Brutal Strike is effectively a -5/+1d10 feature; more or less the same as Great Weapon Master.

I still don't like it, but it does make more sense.

[Darth Credence]

Dr. Samurai - Reckless Attack is great!
Darth Credence - So you're saying players shouldn't have to sacrifice anything because it doesn't feel great to not be winning.
Dr. Samurai - *checks to confirm that Reckless Attack still requires sacrificing your Armor Class* Yep, it does. Hmm... I wonder if your absolute takeaways from what I'm saying might require a reevaluation...

I get you don't agree with me. That's fine. But I'm not saying players shouldn't sacrifice anything or whatever other mischaracterizations might come forward. I was praising Cunning Strike when the rogue was released as well, and that requires a sacrifice as well.

I get that you think what you are saying is clear. That's fine. But you keep repeating that not hitting doesn't feel great, as though that is something that everyone feels. You also think there is some fundamental difference between not hitting because you made one choice and not because you made a different choice. That's fine, too. But perhaps your phrasing needs a bit of reevaluation, too, because so far none of it has changed that it sounds like you don't want to have any risk that you might not win because it doesn't feel great. Sure, you say reckless attack is great, but that's the status quo. Any change to that is making it less fun because even though it brings other advantages it might mean you miss and that doesn't feel great.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm pretty sure you agree that it's a massive step up from the ribbon feature that is brutal critical, but I can't see why you think the option of tactical effects in combat isn't good.
It is a massive step up from Brutal Critical, yes. It gives you a new choice.

But to make use of that new feature, you can't benefit from Advantage. That's a big cost. And it's a big cost that is in the opposite direction of how the barbarian has played for over a decade now.

All the charts supplied thus far indicate that you *should* use this ability. Which means that your barbarian won't have Advantage to attack most of the time.

In the strictest sense having a choice is better than not having a choice. But it doesn't mean it's a great choice.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about not wanting to sacrifice your Advantage feature specifically to make use of this ability. It seems unfair to put forth that I'm suggesting players always win and never experience failure. It seems worse than that actually, but I can't run amok of the mods :smallamused:.

[Psyren]

That's not what I'm saying.

Missing is a fact of life when playing the game. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the barbarian having to use their "increase accuracy" feature to make a brutal strike, and to use it they have to "decrease accuracy" instead. So now you might miss because of your own actions. It's just player psychology. Missing because the die fell on a 3 is not the same as missing because you chose to roll 1 die when you could have rolled 2.

And I don't agree that "the gamble" is the fun in playing a barbarian. I think the consistent accuracy, toughness, and strength (grapple/push) is the fun in being a barbarian. And giving up a key feature of the class (at-will advantage) to use brutal strike doesn't seem right to me.

I agree with this completely. And feel-good player psychology isn't even the only factor here. (That's an important factor, especially in D&D 5e, but still.) By allowing Brutal Strike to only give up the advantage from RA but still benefit from other sources of advantage, that actually adds counterplay:



It rewards teamwork, because your party can help make sure you get advantage, and you can use BS to help them in turn (e.g. by imposing disadvantage on the enemy's next save, or knocking the enemy into a nasty zone effect or hazard they set up etc.)
It gives the barbarian all new build options/more depth, because now they have a reason to care about other sources of advantage. A Barbarian might now actually care about using a Topple weapon like a Maul, or Vex weapons like a pair of Handaxes, or a feat like Grappler - where before those things were redundant with RA, and therefore not nearly as useful for them.


That kind of counterplay leads to the game design holy grail - depth, and it does so without actually making the ability any more complex to use!

[Yakk]

For fun, here's a chart of whether you're expected to deal more or less damage by using Brutal Strike for the full range of accuracies, assuming that your average damage is 10 (which I picked because that's roughly the naive base damage for a single attack at 9th level, assuming that you're getting the Rage bonus damage):

https://i.imgur.com/q2vuos4.png

Notice how the curve is really close up until around the 55% accuracy mark, and then +1d10 damage starts outpacing the extra attack die? That's the point where the +1d10 damage is, in fact, worth the loss of an extra attack die (especially since you're also getting a rider stapled onto the attack, so there's additional value stapled on top of the Brutal Strike damage that just relying on Advantage doesn't give you).
A reasonable amount of damage for a level 9 barbarian is
2d6 (greatsword)
5 (strength)
3 (rage)
Conditional 4 (great weapon mastery) 1/turn

With P chance of hitting and 5% crit and 2 swings, with advantage the DPR is:
P(2-P)*30 + 1.4 + 4 * (P(2-P))(2-P(2-P))

(P(2-P) is the chance that either of 2 d20 rolls with a P chance of success hit; so the chance that any of 4 hit is (feed equation in recursively)).

With P chance of hitting and 5% crit and 2 swings, and +1d10 damage per swing, the DPR is:
P*(7+5+3+5.5) + .1*(7+5.5) + 4 *(1-(1-P)^2)
P*(20.5) + 1.25 + 4 *P(2-P)

Subtracting:
P*(20.5) + 1.25 + 4 *P(2-P) - [ P(2-P)*30 + 1.4 + 4 * (P(2-P))(2-P(2-P))]
Grouping:
P(-39.5 + 30P) -0.15 - 4 *(P(2-P))(1-P(2-P))
So the right part is modestly negative (-0.15 and the -4 component), representing a slighly higher crit damage and "at least one hit" with the advantage case. (P(2-P))(1-P(2-P)) is maximal at P(2-P)=.5, at which point is is 0.25, so that represents at most 1.15 points of damage per round lost (and usually less).

Which leaves P(-39.5 + 30P), which represents the difference in damage of normal hits on average. It says that +5.5 never matches advantage?

We can look at where it came from to see what is going on:

Normal hit DPR from Brutal - Normal hit DPR from Reckless ~ 0
P(K+1d10) - P(2-P)K ~ 0
where K is baseline damage (2d6+5+3 above).

The outermost P doesn't matter to the comparison
K+1d10 - (2-P)K ~ 0
K+1d10 - 2K + PK ~ 0
1d10-K + PK ~ 0
PK ~ K-1d10
P ~ 1-1d10/K

So, when your chance of missing is less than 1d10/(normal hit damage), Brutal has a chance of helping your damage output.

In your case, you set normal hit damage to 10. So 5.5/10 is 55%, a high miss chance (Reckless needs a 12 or higher to be more DPR!)

In my case, I hit normal hit damage to 15. 5.5/15 is 36%, still a high miss chance (hit on a 8 or higher and reckless is more normal hit DPR).

Wield a flaming greatsword and a 23 strength belt with normal hit damage of 23 and it becomes 5.5/23 or 24% miss chance (hit on a 5 or higher, and reckless wins).

All of these neglect the extra crit damage (which is marginal, but real) and (if you have the feat) the higher chance of landing the +4 from greatweapon master. But as noted that totals to under 1 HP per round usually.

With the flaming greatsword, it is 9% * 4d6 vs 10%*5.5, or 0.7 DPR lost from crits not doing reckless.

The lost crit damage scales, roughly, with 1/10 (total crit dice - 1d10).

In short: Your choice of really low baseline damage - I'm talking 16 strength, a longsword and rage, then you rounded damage down - led to your conclusion that reckless is way less damage.

[Saelethil]

My understanding after my first reading of Brutal Strikes was that you could still benefit from non-RA sources of advantage. If that was the intent then the wording needs to be clarified.
If they want you to get rid of all sources of advantage then that’s kind of BS. If your cleric hits something with guiding bolt you should still have advantage.

[Mastikator]

Hmm. It occurs to me that Brutal Strike may be a subtle way for WOTC to give barbarians the 2014 Great Weapon Master without actually saying so.

We know that advantage is (generally) the same as a +5 to your roll, and Brutal Strike adds 1d10 damage. So Brutal Strike is effectively a -5/+1d10 feature; more or less the same as Great Weapon Master.

I still don't like it, but it does make more sense.

But it's not just damage. At level 9 you have a very strong positioning control, at level 13 you can impose disadvantage which is incredibly strong and can set up some amazing teamplay (imagine hit an enemy with staggering blow, which has no saving throw and just give disadvantage on their next save, then the wizard hits the target with hold monster! they are likely to lose their next turn and die before the one after that! And it cost you maybe one hit).
The ability to move enemies, or slow their movement, or impose disadvantage on saving throws is HUGE. Your barbarian might start pushing people off cliffs, or ending their grapple condition, or setting them up to fail their save or suck. The thing is is that it's not limited to once per day, with PAM you might be imposing disadvantage on saving throws to 3 targets every single turn! How is that not amazing?

[Oramac]

snip

How is that not amazing?

Oh it absolutely is amazing! No doubt about it. But all of those things you mentioned would work equally well with any other trigger. Trade rage damage for the shove? Same effect. Both RA attack dice hit for the shove? Same effect. Just give them the damn shove? Same effect.

I was merely speculating that this might be WOTC's attempt to, in a roundabout way, give barbarians the old Great Weapon Master feat without actually printing the -5/+10 words.

[Theodoxus]

I'm curious about the number difference between BS removing advantage, and BS working if both dice would result in a hit.

One advantage (pun only slightly intended) to keeping the two die method is you're still increasing your odds of landing a critical - where you have a control die that determines if the BS die and rider are triggering as well.

One assumes the BS die is doubled on a crit (though I'm not 100% versed on all the UA changes, so maybe crits have changed in the interim).

Basically, if there is marginal difference in damage potential between BS being a single d20, and BS requiring a hit on both dice - the simplest solution would be the two dice mechanic; as then you're only looking to see if the lower die hit, and treat it like a Paladin smite - it only triggers BS if you're really wanting to.

A newbie or low mastery player who wants to play something a little more mechanically crunchy than a Champion would probably prefer that method.

Barbie: "I use Reckless Attack on the bandit. I rolled a 19 and a 12, for 24 and 17. Do I hit?"
DM: "Yes, actually both hit. Would you like to use Brutal Strike, or just regular damage?"
Barbie: "I guess regular? I'm not sure what Brutal Strike does".
DM: "Ok, roll your damage then. We'll go over the other options after the game."

[Kane0]

But it's not just damage. At level 9 you have a very strong positioning control, at level 13 you can impose disadvantage which is incredibly strong and can set up some amazing teamplay (imagine hit an enemy with staggering blow, which has no saving throw and just give disadvantage on their next save, then the wizard hits the target with hold monster! they are likely to lose their next turn and die before the one after that! And it cost you maybe one hit).
The ability to move enemies, or slow their movement, or impose disadvantage on saving throws is HUGE.

What about weapon masteries? Dont they also do much the same thing?

[Mastikator]

Oh it absolutely is amazing! No doubt about it. But all of those things you mentioned would work equally well with any other trigger. Trade rage damage for the shove? Same effect. Both RA attack dice hit for the shove? Same effect. Just give them the damn shove? Same effect.

I was merely speculating that this might be WOTC's attempt to, in a roundabout way, give barbarians the old Great Weapon Master feat without actually printing the -5/+10 words.

The funny thing is that if you pick up the 2024 GWM and play berzerker you'll hit incredibly hard with brutal strike, even if you only hit once. It's strength + rage + rage x d6 + d10 + proficiency. Plus double riders from weapon mastery and brutal strike. With a mere +1 great sword and 20 strength at level 9 you may be looking at 5d6+1d10+9+5(miss) and move the target 15 feet if one attack hits and one misses. It's 40 damage on a turn with a single hit, it's not bad when you take into account that you can also impose no-save riders!

@Kane0 yes but you can double rider. For instance you could topple + shove+move with attacks, or deal damage on miss with brutal strike then deal super damage on hit. Or sap + brutal critical slow for 25 feet slow on target (no save, you just need to hit). The opportunities are well underestimated in this thread!

[Psyren]

What about weapon masteries? Dont they also do much the same thing?

There is no weapon mastery that duplicates Brutal Strike Improvement (i.e. staggering/sundering blow.)

[Kane0]

@Kane0 yes but you can double rider. For instance you could topple + shove+move with attacks, or deal damage on miss with brutal strike then deal super damage on hit. Or sap + brutal critical slow for 25 feet slow on target (no save, you just need to hit). The opportunities are well underestimated in this thread!

Something to look forward to in the later levels then, being about to combo your riders actually does sound pretty neat

[Moxxmix]

What about weapon masteries? Dont they also do much the same thing?

Yes, but they also stack with Brutal Strike. Forceful Blow + Push gives 25' knockback. Hamstring Blow + Slow reduces speed by 25'.


The thing is is that it's not limited to once per day, with PAM you might be imposing disadvantage on saving throws to 3 targets every single turn! How is that not amazing?
This part isn't correct, though. You can only use Brutal Strike once on your turn (ie: the next attack after you use Reckless Attack), not on every attack. So no, you can't penalize a bunch of targets at once.

[Mastikator]

This part isn't correct, though. You can only use Brutal Strike once on your turn (ie: the next attack after you use Reckless Attack), not on every attack. So no, you can't penalize a bunch of targets at once.

Huh you're right. I didn't read it correctly. If you use brutal strike one attack will have 1d10 + rider, the other will have advantage from reckless. On level 9 you could optimally add 1d10 and a rider. Perhaps it's less awesome than I thought.

[Moxxmix]

I'm curious about the number difference between BS removing advantage, and BS working if both dice would result in a hit.

One advantage (pun only slightly intended) to keeping the two die method is you're still increasing your odds of landing a critical - where you have a control die that determines if the BS die and rider are triggering as well.

One assumes the BS die is doubled on a crit (though I'm not 100% versed on all the UA changes, so maybe crits have changed in the interim).

Basically, if there is marginal difference in damage potential between BS being a single d20, and BS requiring a hit on both dice - the simplest solution would be the two dice mechanic; as then you're only looking to see if the lower die hit, and treat it like a Paladin smite - it only triggers BS if you're really wanting to.

A newbie or low mastery player who wants to play something a little more mechanically crunchy than a Champion would probably prefer that method.

Barbie: "I use Reckless Attack on the bandit. I rolled a 19 and a 12, for 24 and 17. Do I hit?"
DM: "Yes, actually both hit. Would you like to use Brutal Strike, or just regular damage?"
Barbie: "I guess regular? I'm not sure what Brutal Strike does".
DM: "Ok, roll your damage then. We'll go over the other options after the game."

Keeping advantage, but only getting the effect when both dice would hit, would substantially reduce the effectiveness of the feature. If you have a 65% hit rate, then if you roll normally then you have a 65% chance of inflicting the effect. If you keep advantage but only get the effect if both dice land, then you only have a 42% chance of inflicting the effect.

This also assumes you lose the bonus 1d10 damage since you're not giving up advantage. (The bonus damage die is basically to keep your overall damage on par with what it was.) If you keep the damage die, then it's a strict upgrade in damage, but still a worse way of inflicting the special effect, which is the main point of the ability.

So I think that approach is overall a bad idea. It adds more complications and number tracking for a worse result.

[Zanthy1]

Sorry if this is an easy to find answer, but is this for 5e or the new ONE or whatever it is being called? I have been sorely out of the loop since like....covid started or something? Trying to ease my way back in.

[GooeyChewie]

Sorry if this is an easy to find answer, but is this for 5e or the new ONE or whatever it is being called? I have been sorely out of the loop since like....covid started or something? Trying to ease my way back in.

This UA is a playtest for the upcoming core books to be released in 2024.

[Theodoxus]

Keeping advantage, but only getting the effect when both dice would hit, would substantially reduce the effectiveness of the feature. If you have a 65% hit rate, then if you roll normally then you have a 65% chance of inflicting the effect. If you keep advantage but only get the effect if both dice land, then you only have a 42% chance of inflicting the effect.

This also assumes you lose the bonus 1d10 damage since you're not giving up advantage. (The bonus damage die is basically to keep your overall damage on par with what it was.) If you keep the damage die, then it's a strict upgrade in damage, but still a worse way of inflicting the special effect, which is the main point of the ability.

So I think that approach is overall a bad idea. It adds more complications and number tracking for a worse result.

It must be a case where the assumption doesn't meet reality (a very common occurrence with probability). It appears on the surface that if you're using BS with 1 die, that it would hit just as often as when rolling two dice. Though thinking it through, if I need to roll a 12 on the die to hit, if I roll a 16 on one die, I still only have a 40% chance to roll a 12+ on the second die.

I'm still not convinced it's horrible just based on the assumption - I suspect for most players, it's more a feeling than how it plays out. And I think it's still the simpler mechanic - as I mentioned, it's like Smite. You only use it when you hit, rather than calling it out beforehand and potentially missing, while still granting advantage to your enemies.


Sorry if this is an easy to find answer, but is this for 5e or the new ONE or whatever it is being called? I have been sorely out of the loop since like....covid started or something? Trying to ease my way back in.

This is the new ONE (D&DOne, 1D&D, 5.5E, 6.dumbE, whatever).

[Oramac]

I'm still not convinced it's horrible just based on the assumption - I suspect for most players, it's more a feeling than how it plays out. And I think it's still the simpler mechanic - as I mentioned, it's like Smite. You only use it when you hit, rather than calling it out beforehand and potentially missing, while still granting advantage to your enemies.

This. The vast majority of players don't know or care about the probabilities. They care what's fun and feels good. Rolling two dice and hitting with both, regardless of the math being worse, FEELS BETTER than sacrificing one die and missing the attack.

[Kane0]

Does everyone think Monk is in a good place now with this UA? I get the impression that no noise is a good thing, but that could equally be apathy.

[Dalinar]

Does everyone think Monk is in a good place now with this UA? I get the impression that no noise is a good thing, but that could equally be apathy.

I'm a fan, personally, though my group isn't super interested in playtesting the hot new stuff all the time, so I'll be relying on others' experience in the coming weeks. I'm seeing genuine excitement around most of the changes, with a big exception for Monk not getting weapon mastery this time around (I am not certain this version of Monk needs it, but it does make sense that the cool new toy being ignored feels bad).

At the very least they're no longer a frontrunner for worst class in the game, provided this sees print in more-or-less the same form. (Not sure who is. Maybe Ranger?) Their defensive weakness at low levels is pretty much gone, and their flexibility and resource economy is also much improved. They even got a little damage bump over 2014 via a larger MA die, and an extra hit from Flurry at level 10, and the (kinda strange) extra force damage if a target saves against Stunning Strike.

[Mastikator]

Does everyone think Monk is in a good place now with this UA? I get the impression that no noise is a good thing, but that could equally be apathy.

I think they kinda nailed it. Except for the part where monks are getting d8 for hit points when they should be getting d10. Still, their suite seems on par with the other classes. The main benefit is how they fixed level 2 and setting the base martial arts dice to d6, from there hope springs eternal.

[Skrum]

I think they kinda nailed it.

I think AC/general durability is still going to be a problem/weak spot. Maybe not at "average" difficulty, but at higher optimization levels the monk will be forced into a conservative skirmishing roll. They now have the tools to actually be a skirmisher, which is excellent, but still - a monk that can't spend their action and bonus action attacking is sacrificing damage. A hexadin or eldritch knight that can raise their AC to 28 when needed is not making that kind of tradeoff between offense and defense.

Also, I have to say it because I will never NOT bring it up, but this monk is at best on target *compared to martial options.* I think the monk's toolkit makes it very difficult to compare to the paladin (the hands down best martial class) since they're so different, but I think monk may actually have the tools to work as well as paladin does.

But that said. Paladin still has a window of optimal play, and beyond that, cannot hang with the best classes. I think this version of monk will be similar. Strong, does what it's supposed to, has something to offer in most/any situation, but can't begin to keep up with cleric or wizard as the game heads into t3.

[Kane0]

I think AC/general durability is still going to be a problem/weak spot. Maybe not at "average" difficulty, but at higher optimization levels the monk will be forced into a conservative skirmishing roll. They now have the tools to actually be a skirmisher, which is excellent, but still - a monk that can't spend their action and bonus action attacking is sacrificing damage.

How good is the new Deflect Attacks in your eyes? And the action dodge + BA attack (at least, until level 5)?

Also, by your estimation much weight should design place on optimized play vs casual?

[Skrum]

How good is the new Deflect Attacks in your eyes? And the action dodge + BA attack (at least, until level 5)?

Good point about using an action to dodge and still being able to bonus action attack - the decoupling of martial arts from action usage is a big deal. But, I wouldn't call that a strict win. Yes it's a good tactic, but the monk is giving up an attack. That leaves them with a single d6 attack. That's pretty poor damage, even for level 4 or less.

Obviously, Deflect Attack is a lot better than what the monk had before (nothing). I'm skeptical that it makes up for lessor AC.

But that's just my intuition! Let's try some numbers and maybe I eat my words.

Level 7 monk vs level 7 paladin
monk AC: 17 (+4 dex, +3 wis)
paladin AC: 23 (18 plate, +2 from shield, +1 from defensive fighting style, +2 shield of faith)

Situation 1, facing several enemy archers: get attacked 4 times, +6 to hit, 1d8+3 per hit
monk expected damage*: 11.92
*deflect attack is overwhelmingly likely to block an entire attack, so I calculated this like the monk was only attacked 3 times

paladin expected damage: 6.9

Situation 2, a hill giant: get attacked 2 times, +8 to hit, 3d8+5
monk expected damage: 11.78 + 1.178 = 12.95
*deflect attack will prevent on average 16.5 damage. The giant does an average of 18.5 damage. This gets hard to convert to average results, so I assumed that 90% of the giant's attack would be deflected. Thus, the "average" deflected attack would deal 1.178 damage.

paladin expected damage: 12.45

============

So, I feel I need to slightly eat my words - deflect attack is quite strong, especially against less heavier hitting attacks (which is common sense).
As long as the monk is situationally aware and doesn't get swarmed, they should be able to stay fairly safe.




Also, by your estimation much weight should design place on optimized play vs casual?

This is a much more subjective answer. I personally put quite a bit of emphasis on optimized play because that's how me and my friends play.

In terms of game design, I think balanced classes and questions like "do the rules hold up to optimized/edge cases" are the hallmark of a well made game. If the game running properly relies on the players not making smart choices, that's a huge sign of a problem with the game.

[crayonshinchuck]

Minor nitpick, but it is a bit of a stretch to assume that every Paladin will have taken the Defensive fighting style and have Shield of Faith up at all times.

[GeoffWatson]

Also the monk in your example uses Deflect on an attack that might miss. You should have them use it on an attack that hits.

[Skrum]

Minor nitpick, but it is a bit of a stretch to assume that every Paladin will have taken the Defensive fighting style and have Shield of Faith up at all times.

Fair enough; there's a lot of different assumptions one could make. Maybe this is a high magic game and the monk has bracers of defense and the paladin has a ring or cloak of protection. Maybe they rolled for stats and the monk already has 20 in dex and wis. It could cut a lot of ways. I assumed point buy and that they'd have no particular items, but it could be a few degrees in either direction.

IME, paladins often take defensive fighting style. They don't get many options for fighting styles and defensive is a pretty strong pick for a class that's almost certainly going to be on the front line. Dueling is another option of course, but paladins usually use smite for damage when they really need it.

As for shield of faith, yeah, this is a more contentious thing to assume. But - it is a paladin resource, and one they're likely to use in any notable fight. Saying "can't count shield of faith because it won't always be up" is constraining the comparative massively in favor of the class that gets an at-will defensive feature. If the monk is using all of their reactions on deflect attack and the paladin using shield of faith when it matters, idk, I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.

[Skrum]

Also the monk in your example uses Deflect on an attack that might miss. You should have them use it on an attack that hits.

Yup, I'll correct that. Good catch.

[Makorel]

Monks also get temp HP when they use Patient Defense at 10th level+. Maybe not the most effective thing you can do during battle but you could pop it beforehand.

[Psyren]

I think AC/general durability is still going to be a problem/weak spot. Maybe not at "average" difficulty, but at higher optimization levels the monk will be forced into a conservative skirmishing roll. They now have the tools to actually be a skirmisher, which is excellent, but still - a monk that can't spend their action and bonus action attacking is sacrificing damage.

All four monks can do this now though?

Open Hand: Addle(+Topple) at level 3 means they can attack+flurry and still get out of melee, for 1 DP. At 11+, they don't even need Topple anymore, because they can attack+flurry+dash instead, again for 1 DP.

Mercy: Physician's Touch = no save poison, i.e. free dodge against any enemy not immune to poison, which is most of them. Disadvantage means they can probably hang around in melee - and if they do need to get out it applies to the OA too.

Shadow: Magical Darkness they can move and see through = free dodge again, only this time they have advantage to hit. And now, they can flurry on the same round they cast it. The DPR they lose on round 1 will be offset by the DPR they gain on rounds 2 and 3.

Four Elements: They have 10ft reach and can push the enemy 10ft more, so they don't need to Disengage either. One of the 4-5 Strength saves the enemy makes vs push is bound to fail.

TL;DR OH and 4E are easy skirmishers, while Mercy and Shadow are more tanky, without giving up any attacks.

[Skrum]

OH and 4E are easy skirmishers, while Mercy and Shadow are more tanky, without giving up any attacks.

See the update is even better than I thought xD. I'm actually happy to be proven wrong on this TBH.

Not to be churlish but I would still call myself slightly skeptical? Like I'd like to see the monk in play. Again, only going off my own experience, high AC is high AC and nothing else quite compares when it comes to melee characters. For instance, skirmishing works great when the map is large or has favorable terrain features (and you don't need to hold ground for other reasons) and the enemies don't have a lot of ranged options. But that's quite a bit of favorable context.

[Boverk]

Extremely minor thing, but question, would it make since to wrap the bonus action attack into flurry of blows?

For example, for patient defense, the document says:


You can take the Disengage action as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, you can spend 1 Discipline Point to take both the Disengage and the Dodge actions as a Bonus Action.

So maybe have flurry of blows say

"You can make an unarmed attack as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, you can spend 1 Discipline Point to make two unarmed attacks as a Bonus Action"

I know there's a couple of abilities that work off of flurry of blows.

[Psyren]

Extremely minor thing, but question, would it make since to wrap the bonus action attack into flurry of blows?

For example, for patient defense, the document says:



So maybe have flurry of blows say

"You can make an unarmed attack as a Bonus Action. Alternatively, you can spend 1 Discipline Point to make two unarmed attacks as a Bonus Action"

I know there's a couple of abilities that work off of flurry of blows.

The problem with that, is that you get the bonus action attack at level 1, before you have discipline or flurry. You're not getting both pieces at the same time the way you are with PD and SotW.

[animewatcha]

With this change, 11+ Mercy can choose to do 2 heal and 1 harm or 3 heal for cost of 1 ki.

[Boverk]

The problem with that, is that you get the bonus action attack at level 1, before you have discipline or flurry. You're not getting both pieces at the same time the way you are with PD and SotW.

Fair and excellent point

[Dalinar]

Incidentally, after my last post, I was trying to work out a rough estimation for the value of Deflect Attack, but I ultimately had too much trouble figuring out how to get Google Sheets to emulate "the average of all possible results when you roll a die, then roll another die, subtract that die, add a flat modifier, and change all negative results to zero" other than one specific case that I did in a more manual fashion, before real life interrupted me. Here's how that went.

Deflect Attacks is d10+DEX+level now, which is going to be d10+6 for your typical third level Monk, who probably has 16 AC (+3DEX, +3WIS).

The specific case I was looking at was two incoming attacks of d12+5 damage. This isn't based on any particular monster, though it is fairly close to the damage a CR 2 Polar Bear deals (d8+5 and 2d6+5 per round). I ended up doing 50% accuracy for ease of calculation at first, which in retrospect was a mistake; anything with that high of a flat mod also likely has relatively good accuracy--likely +7 to hit in this case, which is 60% accurate versus AC 16. So I went back to the spreadsheet just now and fixed the numbers accordingly.

Given this situation, as arbitrary as it is, I'm getting roughly 59% expected damage reduction from using your reaction on Deflect Attacks that round. 69% if you dodged with Patient Defense or your action.

Specifically, in the non-Dodge case, the numbers came out to 13.8 DPR getting reduced to 5.68; and in the Dodge case, 8.27 to 2.57. I expect a typical Monk to have 24 HP at this level, though YMMV (that's a 14 CON and no rolling for hit points).

So, until someone better at operating a spreadsheet than me comes along, that's the best I've got on that. Seems very strong to me now that the "ranged attacks only" limiter was removed, though obviously if the Monk gets swarmed by lots of small creatures it'll matter less. Good thing they're pretty mobile, huh?

EDIT: oh, yeah, forgot to mention: I didn't factor crits into this calculation, so incoming DPR is a little higher. Oversight on my part, and if I weren't kinda tired of grappling with the problem, I'd correct it.

[Skrum]

Thinking about this ability some more, it seems generally stronger than Uncanny Dodge. If we assume that most people play in the 5-10 level range, it prevents about 17 damage per usage. Uncanny Dodge, which simply halves the attack, will prevent quite a bit less since most attacks don't do 34 damage.

But of course, UD works on all damage types and DA is only b p s. Which brings up an interesting question - what if the attack does two damage types? Many undead for instance deal base slashing damage + necrotic rider. Slashing + poison shows up relatively often too. How does DA work against those attacks?

[Amechra]

Trade rage damage for the shove? Same effect.

Eh, you'd have to make the trade really minor unless you wanted it to be automatic. 2 to 4 damage isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, so it doesn't make for a good "trade good".


Does everyone think Monk is in a good place now with this UA? I get the impression that no noise is a good thing, but that could equally be apathy.

I like it... except I think that they should've come up with a different 10th level upgrade for Flurry of Blows? I dunno.

The coolest part is definitely the Monk Taxi at 10th level, which definitely solves one of the issues with being super mobile.

[Kane0]

But of course, UD works on all damage types and DA is only b p s. Which brings up an interesting question - what if the attack does two damage types? Many undead for instance deal base slashing damage + necrotic rider. Slashing + poison shows up relatively often too. How does DA work against those attacks?

Good question. By my reading it looks like the reaction triggers as usual and all of the damage is reduced, because it says 'the total'

[Psyren]

I like it... except I think that they should've come up with a different 10th level upgrade for Flurry of Blows? I dunno.


The extra punch at 10 is perfect imo, maybe even a bit too good. Not only does it help solve their entering-T3-damage-scaling issue, a lot of monk subclasses either interact with the number of hits you get in a flurry directly, or they do so indirectly by triggering off each unarmed strike you make. Open Hand gets an additional Technique per round, Mercy gets an additional Hand of Healing which means they also get an additional Physician's Touch (if you need one) OR another punch you can convert to a Hand of Harm in case you needed to Heal twice, and 4E gets another Elemental Strike which means another 10ft push or pull, which combos perfectly with your speed. So not only are you getting more raw damage, you're getting more of whatever cool thing your subclass is designed to do.

[Koury]

New Monk looks VERY good on Bugbear, no? Especially in the first round of a combat.

[Sindal]

I wonder why they decided to up the healing numbers.
I'm not complaining, I'm a healer main, but I wonder why. Will we be in more danger in 2024?

It's worth remembering that enemies with healing spells will be stickier too

[Skrum]

I wonder why they decided to up the healing numbers.
I'm not complaining, I'm a healer main, but I wonder why. Will we be in more danger in 2024?

It's worth remembering that enemies with healing spells will be stickier too

Hopefully because Revivify has been eliminated from the game. I really really hate that spell.

[Psyren]

I wonder why they decided to up the healing numbers.
I'm not complaining, I'm a healer main, but I wonder why. Will we be in more danger in 2024?

It's worth remembering that enemies with healing spells will be stickier too

They don't need to up the danger, they already consider us as being behind the curve for survivability. Remember earlier in the playtest when they were experimenting with monsters being unable to crit?

[Oramac]

Also, I have to say it because I will never NOT bring it up, but this monk is at best on target *compared to martial options.* I think the monk's toolkit makes it very difficult to compare to the paladin (the hands down best martial class) since they're so different, but I think monk may actually have the tools to work as well as paladin does.

But that said. Paladin still has a window of optimal play, and beyond that, cannot hang with the best classes. I think this version of monk will be similar. Strong, does what it's supposed to, has something to offer in most/any situation, but can't begin to keep up with cleric or wizard as the game heads into t3.

Keep in mind that the paladin is being nerfed into the ground, assuming the UA6 version goes to print. Comparing the UA8 (9?) monk to the 2014 paladin is the wrong comparison. I would venture that the UA8 (9?) monk is decidedly better than the UA6 paladin, even with the paladin's armor and whatnot.


Eh, you'd have to make the trade really minor unless you wanted it to be automatic. 2 to 4 damage isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, so it doesn't make for a good "trade good".

True enough. I was mainly just throwing alternative ideas out there.

[ZRN]

I think people were already saying it's a less fun feature before your chart when up. Your chart was addressing one comment, which is fine (the chart is useful by the way, thank you).

But it doesn't address the fact that if you have a choice to be more accurate, you can forego it to do something else, and then you might just miss your attack after that decision. Which doesn't feel great. Reckless Attack currently feels great because it's at-will Advantage generation. If you get hit, you get hit, but as a frontliner you expect to take hits, and you have Resistance to buttress that cost.

But using Reckless Attack in a way that might make you miss doesn't feel great.


It's basically the exact same tradeoff as the old Power Attack portion of GWM/SS - give up accuracy for added damage (plus a rider effect!) - and while some people didn't like those effects I don't think I ever heard anyone say it "felt bad" to have that option.

[Oramac]

It's basically the exact same tradeoff as the old Power Attack portion of GWM/SS - give up accuracy for added damage (plus a rider effect!) - and while some people didn't like those effects I don't think I ever heard anyone say it "felt bad" to have that option.

It didn't feel bad because you could use it with advantage. I could take the -5 penalty, but still use Reckless Attack for advantage to (at least partially) offset the penalty at the cost of making myself easier to hit.

[ZRN]

The extra punch at 10 is perfect imo, maybe even a bit too good. Not only does it help solve their entering-T3-damage-scaling issue, a lot of monk subclasses either interact with the number of hits you get in a flurry directly, or they do so indirectly by triggering off each unarmed strike you make. Open Hand gets an additional Technique per round, Mercy gets an additional Hand of Healing which means they also get an additional Physician's Touch (if you need one) OR another punch you can convert to a Hand of Harm in case you needed to Heal twice, and 4E gets another Elemental Strike which means another 10ft push or pull, which combos perfectly with your speed. So not only are you getting more raw damage, you're getting more of whatever cool thing your subclass is designed to do.

My initial concern was that you're loading too much of your damage into the bonus action, which makes it suck when you want to use your bonus action for something else. But looking at it more, Mercy monk already really wants to use Flurry, 4E can fly (at 11+) and has reach on its attacks and so doesn't need to use a bonus action for mobility that often, and of course Open Hand (at 11+) now gets a free Step of the Wind with each Flurry. So I guess the design trick is that the subclasses ameliorate the impact of choosing between Flurry and another bonus action.

[Aimeryan]

It's basically the exact same tradeoff as the old Power Attack portion of GWM/SS - give up accuracy for added damage (plus a rider effect!) - and while some people didn't like those effects I don't think I ever heard anyone say it "felt bad" to have that option.

Not exactly; the difference is 10 vs a d10 (avg. 5.5), and the tradeoff is Advantage (from any and all sources) vs -5 to hit. The latter is about equal, although crits are lessened. The former is about half the value. GWM/SS was always a tradeoff, but if you take half the benefit away it obviously becomes far more difficult to justify.

As Yakk pointed out, the accuracy cross-over point being calculated was being very generous to Brutal Strike at 75% (before considering Advantage) due to a low damage per hit being considered, so the cross-over point is likely even higher than this before it becomes a dps increase rather than a dps loss. There is also the consideration that increasing the avg. damage is not always beneficial if it means a reliability drop - especially considering overkill. The high accuracy cross-over point likely means lots of lower CR mobs, which need less damage to take care off - it might still be preferable to just have more reliable hits.

Lastly, this is a higher level ability - you would expect better features than 'possibly a slight increase in damage'. Now, the riders are alright - but you can get them largely from Weapon Mastery, and they are already kind of niche. The chance you'll need/benefit much from doubling up is quite low.

I agree with Psyren that at the very least the Advantage loss should only be from Reckless Attack, not a ban on Advantage altogether. If you have another source of Advantage regularly then this could be quite a decent feature with that change.

[ZRN]

It didn't feel bad because you could use it with advantage. I could take the -5 penalty, but still use Reckless Attack for advantage to (at least partially) offset the penalty at the cost of making myself easier to hit.

Let me clarify that I think the new thingy should not foreclose other sources of advantage.

[GooeyChewie]

I agree with Psyren that at the very least the Advantage loss should only be from Reckless Attack, not a ban on Advantage altogether. If you have another source of Advantage regularly then this could be quite a decent feature with that change.

Agreed. That’s exactly what I intend to put in my feedback.

[Boverk]

Let me clarify that I think the new thingy should not foreclose other sources of advantage.

This, they could make that obvious by making the language say that reckless attack doesn't remove advantage while using this, just doesn't grant it.

[Skrum]

Keep in mind that the paladin is being nerfed into the ground, assuming the UA6 version goes to print. Comparing the UA8 (9?) monk to the 2014 paladin is the wrong comparison. I would venture that the UA8 (9?) monk is decidedly better than the UA6 paladin, even with the paladin's armor and whatnot.


What are paladins losing besides multiple smites per turn? I mean, obviously strictly speaking being able to smite only once per turn is worse, but I don't think that's a particularly big nerf. And the smite spells are being improved (like, actually usable), so that's a plus.

Edit: oh and aura of protection is getting move to 7th too, right?

[Psyren]

What are paladins losing besides multiple smites per turn? I mean, obviously strictly speaking being able to smite only once per turn is worse, but I don't think that's a particularly big nerf. And the smite spells are being improved (like, actually usable), so that's a plus.

Edit: oh and aura of protection is getting move to 7th too, right?

No, AoP is still at 6th. 7th is subclass feature as before, because they reverted from standardized subclass progression.

Regarding Smite - it's not just that it's 1/round, it also eats their bonus action to activate now too. No more PAMadin or Dual Wielder. Base smite is also a leveled spell now, so it can't be combined with any other leveled spells.

With that said, as written now they can smite with unarmed strikes and thrown weapons. Paladin is my least-played class in all of 5e so I'm going to back through some of the more professional optimizer analyses.

[crayonshinchuck]

It didn't feel bad because you could use it with advantage. I could take the -5 penalty, but still use Reckless Attack for advantage to (at least partially) offset the penalty at the cost of making myself easier to hit.

While I agree with Psyren and the other folks that it might be nice for the Barbarian to still be able to use advantage from another source when doing this, it is really hard for me to understand folks that say exactly what you have said above. Sure, in the past (and in my experience) folks often looked for sources of Advantage to use the power attack from GWM/SS. But if Advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit, then in the old scenario, people were already essentially giving up Advantage to try to get the extra damage. Here it just works slightly differently, where the attacker is giving up the Advantage specifically for the extra damage and supplemental effect. It is essentially the same choice as the old GWM/SS that you (and others) seem to think was far more palatable. Sure, missing feels bad, but that was one of the chances folks took (at took frequently) when risking the use of the -5/+10 power attack. I just do not see why this very similar choice is being railed on. I understand that the damage is less usually, but it is silly to ignore the supplemental effect as if it is meaningless.

[Yakk]

What are paladins losing besides multiple smites per turn? I mean, obviously strictly speaking being able to smite only once per turn is worse, but I don't think that's a particularly big nerf. And the smite spells are being improved (like, actually usable), so that's a plus.

Edit: oh and aura of protection is getting move to 7th too, right?

1. It requires a bonus action. Divine Smite was actionless.
2. It doesn't crit. This is big.
3. It is a spell cast, so the 2 spells/turn restrictions apply, as does general spellcasting restrictions
4. You can't divine smite and spell smite on the same attack

What more, it is no longer capped. So the best smiters ... aren't Paladins, because Paladin spell slots cap out at 5. This was already true: this change makes the gap worse.

A Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18 has 9th level smites (10d8), while a Paladin 20 has max 6d8 smites (and fewer of them).

A fun way to play a Paladin was to make a crit-fishing build. You made your character have a high crit chance, and lots of attacks, and used Smite when one crit. This increased your "smite yield" at the cost of it being predictable. This change gets rid of that possible fun.

...

I think that Paladins should have a Smite feature that adds +1 level to the Smite spells they cast at level 5, 10, 15 and 20 (max 9).

So a level 1 slot at level 5 does 3d8 damage, etc. Then we get rid of the "go non-Paladin to smite better" completely.

[Skrum]

Regarding Smite - it's not just that it's 1/round, it also eats their bonus action to activate now too. No more PAMadin or Dual Wielder. Base smite is also a leveled spell now, so it can't be combined with any other leveled spells.



ooo that's right - it's not used on hit any more. That's actually a HUGE nerf. Smite w/o smitecrits is a fine ability, but that's it. Just fine.

Ok. Paladin has suffered and I hate it.

[Oramac]

Regarding Smite - it's not just that it's 1/round, it also eats their bonus action to activate now too. No more PAMadin or Dual Wielder. Base smite is also a leveled spell now, so it can't be combined with any other leveled spells.

Pretty much this. Also, since it's explicitly a spell, technically smite can also be counterspelled, in addition to all the detriments Psyren mentioned. Also, it has a verbal component as well. Admittedly not that big a deal by comparison, but it does remove some options.

I admit, I love paladins, so I'm certainly biased. Take this with whatever grain of salt you need.

[Skrum]

I admit, I love paladins, so I'm certainly biased. Take this with whatever grain of salt you need.

I find these changes to be pretty indefensible, honestly. Paladin was the best martial class, but it was still significantly weaker than cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer. It seems like they myopically focused on "paladin is better than fighter, it's nerfing time."

I can absolutely see the argument for sanding off the edges of the nova damage spikes - but paladins should be compensated for that in the form of MORE regular/non-smite damage.

The fact that it's happening while the actual overtuned classes are getting several improvements/QoL changes is galling.

[Hurrashane]

While I agree with Psyren and the other folks that it might be nice for the Barbarian to still be able to use advantage from another source when doing this, it is really hard for me to understand folks that say exactly what you have said above. Sure, in the past (and in my experience) folks often looked for sources of Advantage to use the power attack from GWM/SS. But if Advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit, then in the old scenario, people were already essentially giving up Advantage to try to get the extra damage. Here it just works slightly differently, where the attacker is giving up the Advantage specifically for the extra damage and supplemental effect. It is essentially the same choice as the old GWM/SS that you (and others) seem to think was far more palatable. Sure, missing feels bad, but that was one of the chances folks took (at took frequently) when risking the use of the +5/-10 power attack. I just do not see why this very similar choice is being railed on. I understand that the damage is less usually, but it is silly to ignore the supplemental effect as if it is meaningless.

I'm of a similar mind as you. Even without advantage there's ways to help a barb in the party get those big hits (and riders) in. Bless, +x magic weapons (or spells that do the same), lucky, portents, etc.

It's a bit higher risk than old GWM was as you grant enemies advantage against you thanks to reckless attack, though I can't think of many opportunities where I've played a barbarian and wasn't just reckless attacking all the time anyway. And with the buff to healing, multiple classes having maneuver like abilities, and the sheer number of other damage mitigation tools available it seems much less dangerous than before... Unless we get to see some monsters and all their damage has been increased a whole lot, I guess.

[ZRN]

I find these changes to be pretty indefensible, honestly. Paladin was the best martial class, but it was still significantly weaker than cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer. It seems like they myopically focused on "paladin is better than fighter, it's nerfing time."

I can absolutely see the argument for sanding off the edges of the nova damage spikes - but paladins should be compensated for that in the form of MORE regular/non-smite damage.

The fact that it's happening while the actual overtuned classes are getting several improvements/QoL changes is galling.

I'd be surprised if they move forward with the smite changes; I can't imagine they scored that well in the survey, and paladin's generally in good enough shape that they're probably happy just giving it the wizard treatment and sending it through with minimal changes.

[Psyren]

While I agree with Psyren and the other folks that it might be nice for the Barbarian to still be able to use advantage from another source when doing this, it is really hard for me to understand folks that say exactly what you have said above. Sure, in the past (and in my experience) folks often looked for sources of Advantage to use the power attack from GWM/SS. But if Advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit, then in the old scenario, people were already essentially giving up Advantage to try to get the extra damage. Here it just works slightly differently, where the attacker is giving up the Advantage specifically for the extra damage and supplemental effect. It is essentially the same choice as the old GWM/SS that you (and others) seem to think was far more palatable. Sure, missing feels bad, but that was one of the chances folks took (at took frequently) when risking the use of the -5/+10 power attack. I just do not see why this very similar choice is being railed on. I understand that the damage is less usually, but it is silly to ignore the supplemental effect as if it is meaningless.

This has come up a few times in the thread, but this isn't a purely mathematical consideration, gamefeel matters too. Even if you were right, and Advantage combined with -5 were mathematically identical to No Advantage (and to be clear, it isn't, especially once you factor in critical hits and misses), letting people choose to combine advantage with the -5 just feels better in play because rolling more dice and choosing the higher one is more gooder. It's JC Penney effect.

In this specific case however, there is a stronger mechanical impact. Letting people give up their RA advantage but still benefit from it another way, not only feels better but it's a solid buff to the barbarian going into T3 and T4. It rewards making build choices or using party tactics that allow the Barbarian to benefit from "spare advantage." As I mentioned upthread, suddenly things like Topple and Vex matter to the Barbarian, where before they would have been wasted build space due to RA. But Barbarians who care more about raw output than getting tricky with BS can opt for Cleave and Graze instead. Similarly, parties who want their Barbarian to hit harder now have more options. "Should I concentrate on Bless since the Barbarian isn't giving up their advantage, or should I concentrate on Web since they are."

And beyond all that, the sheer fact that so many of us read that ability and initially thought "oh, I can still get advantage someplace else" means the wording needs to be cleared up. If their intent is truly for you to give up all advantage on just that first swing regardless of source - which, to be clear yet again I don't think they should do -, it should be very explicit about that.


I'd be surprised if they move forward with the smite changes; I can't imagine they scored that well in the survey, and paladin's generally in good enough shape that they're probably happy just giving it the wizard treatment and sending it through with minimal changes.

I do expect 1/round smite to stick around much like 1/round SS did. But it being a bonus action and a leveled spell with no cap are the questionable bits for me.

I don't mind it having a verbal component though. "BUMP UGLIES!"

[Arkhios]

I've fallen off the bandwagon a while ago. Am I reading this right: Druids are no longer restricted to wear a certain type of armor? Is the sacred cow finally slaughtered?

[Theodoxus]

And with the buff to healing, multiple classes having maneuver like abilities, and the sheer number of other damage mitigation tools available it seems much less dangerous than before... Unless we get to see some monsters and all their damage has been increased a whole lot, I guess.

So, basically 4th Ed martials and 5th Ed casters. Seems like a decent compromise. Removes the 'everyone is a caster with the exact same structure' that is the current goalpost hate for 4th Ed, while still giving martials a lot more (though still squarely linear) options.

[Psyren]

I've fallen off the bandwagon a while ago. Am I reading this right: Druids are no longer restricted to wear a certain type of armor? Is the sacred cow finally slaughtered?

Correct. Ding dong, the witch rule is dead!

They start with light armor and need to spend resources on going higher, but their Primal Order feature makes that pretty cheap.

[crayonshinchuck]

This has come up a few times in the thread, but this isn't a purely mathematical consideration, gamefeel matters too. Even if you were right, and Advantage combined with -5 were mathematically identical to No Advantage (and to be clear, it isn't, especially once you factor in critical hits and misses), letting people choose to combine advantage with the -5 just feels better in play because rolling more dice and choosing the higher one is more gooder. It's JC Penney effect.


I can agree that there may be some mechanical benefits to -5 and Advantage over regular bonus to attack and no Advantage, that make it not identical, I am only saying it is nearly equivalent. I think the chance to miss is almost the same, and while the chance to crit is obviously reduced, if I am not mistaken, crit damage would be greater with Brutal Strike because the extra d10 (or 2d10 later) would also be doubled, while the +10 obviously is not.

Do you think that the GWM/SS power attack would have been significantly less popular and mechanically worse if it had instead been take Disadvantage (or cancel Advantage) on the attack roll to gain +10 damage if you hit?

[TotallyNotEvil]

Huh, the Monk actually looks extremely slick?

The subclass is very bland, but the chassis itself actually makes me want to play one? I can tell it's going to be very agile and all bam-bam-bam hit combo-y.

Bring a more flavorful subclass, or some neat magic items a lá BG3, and it's a hell of a winner.

Barb is also looking for more interesting, provided the actual intent of the rule is that you don't get advantage from RA, which is what I initially read it as, instead of at all.

Didn't know the Paladin got taken to the back and shot, though. It felt to me like perhaps the best designed class in the game, the one issue I had with it was the excessive nova and the fact that Smites drew from the same pool as the more interesting spells. They didn't need to kill it like that.

[Boverk]

I just realized that with these changes, the Warrior of the Elements gets a resource free flying and swimming speed whenever they use Step of the Wind.

So out of combat, they need to use that every 10 minutes to have a flying or swimming speed.

[Salmon343]

1. It requires a bonus action. Divine Smite was actionless.
2. It doesn't crit. This is big.
3. It is a spell cast, so the 2 spells/turn restrictions apply, as does general spellcasting restrictions
4. You can't divine smite and spell smite on the same attack

What more, it is no longer capped. So the best smiters ... aren't Paladins, because Paladin spell slots cap out at 5. This was already true: this change makes the gap worse.

A Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18 has 9th level smites (10d8), while a Paladin 20 has max 6d8 smites (and fewer of them).

A fun way to play a Paladin was to make a crit-fishing build. You made your character have a high crit chance, and lots of attacks, and used Smite when one crit. This increased your "smite yield" at the cost of it being predictable. This change gets rid of that possible fun.

...

I think that Paladins should have a Smite feature that adds +1 level to the Smite spells they cast at level 5, 10, 15 and 20 (max 9).

So a level 1 slot at level 5 does 3d8 damage, etc. Then we get rid of the "go non-Paladin to smite better" completely.

Just on One D&D Paladins - while they have been nerfed a bit in their smite potential, they're still a solid class.

On Critical Smiting - although the spells are cast on a hit, they specifically say that "The target takes an extra a number of dice damage from the attack", or "The target hit by the strike takes an extra a number of dice from the attack". Based on that wording, I reckon it still crits. The damage is explicitly part of the attack. This is as of Playtest 6 (the most recent Paladin UA).

Playtest 4 had "Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target. The damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level Spell Slot, plus 1d8 for each slot level higher than 1st." Based on that wording smites wouldn't crit - the damage is decoupled from the attack here.

On Paladins generally, we've had a lot of improvements. Lay on Hands is a bonus action now, we get one free smite a long rest (of any level). They get Weapon Mastery (new weapons sub-feature for martials letting you activate mini effects on a hit or do other cool things like dual-wield without spending a bonus action). Free Find Steed (prepped and free casting/long rest), new Channel Divinity that can Daze and Frighten Cha-mod creatures within 60 ft..

They removed curing & immunity to disease disease however, and Cleansing Touch (now Restoring Touch) can remove one from a laundry list of conditions instead of ending a spell. Which is a slide evolution, I guess. (To use a Digimon term!)

Smites now being a bonus action does take a hammer to their nuke potential, but other stuff has been smoothed out and improved I think. Worse as a nuke class, but better as a more well-rounded one.

(Most importantly, we can now Smite & Improved Divine Smite on unarmed attacks! The anime smiting Paladin dream lives once more...

Alas, for the ranged smiting dream is still dead. More dead, in fact.)

[Psyren]

I can agree that there may be some mechanical benefits to -5 and Advantage over regular bonus to attack and no Advantage, that make it not identical, I am only saying it is nearly equivalent. I think the chance to miss is almost the same, and while the chance to crit is obviously reduced, if I am not mistaken, crit damage would be greater with Brutal Strike because the extra d10 (or 2d10 later) would also be doubled, while the +10 obviously is not.

Sure, but +1d10 isn't the same as +10, on average it is more like +5.5. So the fact that the d10 would get doubled 5% of the time while the +10 would be doubled never but stay at 10 is actually a wash, or more accurately worse than a wash.



Do you think that the GWM/SS power attack would have been significantly less popular and mechanically worse if it had instead been take Disadvantage (or cancel Advantage) on the attack roll to gain +10 damage if you hit?

My honest opinion/belief is that they would have been less fun. How that would have translated to ultimate popularity/adoption of those two feats I honestly can't say, and it's likely pointless to speculate about such an alternate reality we'll never experience.


Huh, the Monk actually looks extremely slick?

The subclass is very bland, but the chassis itself actually makes me want to play one? I can tell it's going to be very agile and all bam-bam-bam hit combo-y.

Bring a more flavorful subclass, or some neat magic items a lá BG3, and it's a hell of a winner.

Open Hand is kinda supposed to be bland, at least flavorwise. It's as basic monk as monk gets. As long as it's effective at punching and running around it's done it's job, and I think they've nailed that.

The other three are where Monk gets more interesting imo, though I'm still not too happy with 4E. But original 4E did so badly that I think those of us who were hoping the new one would be better got overshadowed in the survey.

[Kane0]

Alas, for the ranged smiting dream is still dead. More dead, in fact.)

There are still a precious few smite spells that work with ranged attacks, unless those also got struck in the UAs.

[crayonshinchuck]

Sure, but +1d10 isn't the same as +10, on average it is more like +5.5. So the fact that the d10 would get doubled 5% of the time while the +10 would be doubled never but stay at 10 is actually a wash, or more accurately worse than a wash.



My honest opinion/belief is that they would have been less fun. How that would have translated to ultimate popularity/adoption of those two feats I honestly can't say, and it's likely pointless to speculate about such an alternate reality we'll never experience.


I wish I didn't have to point out every time that it isn't just a d10, but a d10 plus a reasonably worthwhile supplemental effect. Sure it is "swingier" because a die roll isn't as stable as a straight bonus, and the supplemental effect might not be useful in every situation, but if you aren't factoring that is as worth something, then it is hard to have a serious discussion.

For the second part, how about if the loss of Advantage for the Brutal Strike were to be changed to a straight -5 to hit. Would that then fix the problem of "feels"?

[Salmon343]

There are still a precious few smite spells that work with ranged attacks, unless those also got struck in the UAs.

Yeah, those didn't survive to the most recent playtest sadly.

[Skrum]

Just on One D&D Paladins - while they have been nerfed a bit in their smite potential, they're still a solid class.

On Critical Smiting - although the spells are cast on a hit, they specifically say that "The target takes an extra a number of dice damage from the attack", or "The target hit by the strike takes an extra a number of dice from the attack". Based on that wording, I reckon it still crits. The damage is explicitly part of the attack. This is as of Playtest 6 (the most recent Paladin UA).

Playtest 4 had "Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target. The damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level Spell Slot, plus 1d8 for each slot level higher than 1st." Based on that wording smites wouldn't crit - the damage is decoupled from the attack here.

On Paladins generally, we've had a lot of improvements. Lay on Hands is a bonus action now, we get one free smite a long rest (of any level). They get Weapon Mastery (new weapons sub-feature for martials letting you activate mini effects on a hit or do other cool things like dual-wield without spending a bonus action). Free Find Steed (prepped and free casting/long rest), new Channel Divinity that can Daze and Frighten Cha-mod creatures within 60 ft..

They removed curing & immunity to disease disease however, and Cleansing Touch (now Restoring Touch) can remove one from a laundry list of conditions instead of ending a spell. Which is a slide evolution, I guess. (To use a Digimon term!)

Smites now being a bonus action does take a hammer to their nuke potential, but other stuff has been smoothed out and improved I think. Worse as a nuke class, but better as a more well-rounded one.

(Most importantly, we can now Smite & Improved Divine Smite on unarmed attacks! The anime smiting Paladin dream lives once more...

Alas, for the ranged smiting dream is still dead. More dead, in fact.)

I mean I'm not a fan of these changes at all, so I'm inclined to see it more negatively, but in an objective sense, yes the class is still good. But. I feel they've decided the paladin is the Defense Class, and have shuffled things around to make it fit that image. I *loath* these types of changes. Let me build my own character darnit. 2014 paladin was an excellent defender, if you built them that way. But they also had other build options.

This is like "nope, paladins are holy warriors, and that means they're all about party support. And yah know what party support doesn't need?? Offense! Goodbye smite."

The playtest packages have real mixed bag of stuff; some of it is legitimately cool, other stuff, not so much. I like many of the individual changes. But the overall sense that classes are getting pushed further in the direction of "you picked X, that means your character does Y" is becoming more pronounced IMO. And that is an extremely bad trend for my continued interest in the game.

[Salmon343]

I mean I'm not a fan of these changes at all, so I'm inclined to see it more negatively, but in an objective sense, yes the class is still good. But. I feel they've decided the paladin is the Defense Class, and have shuffled things around to make it fit that image. I *loath* these types of changes. Let me build my own character darnit. 2014 paladin was an excellent defender, if you built them that way. But they also had other build options.

This is like "nope, paladins are holy warriors, and that means they're all about party support. And yah know what party support doesn't need?? Offense! Goodbye smite."

The playtest packages have real mixed bag of stuff; some of it is legitimately cool, other stuff, not so much. I like many of the individual changes. But the overall sense that classes are getting pushed further in the direction of "you picked X, that means your character does Y" is becoming more pronounced IMO. And that is an extremely bad trend for my continued interest in the game.

That's fair. I think they've tried to tone down nova potential across the board, if that helps. You can see it in the Paladin's 1/turn smite (bonus action is just an elegant way of doing that and combining Divine Smite in it too - see Playtest 4 for their messier version of 1/turn while keeping Divine Smite as actionless), in Monks only being able to Stun 1/turn, and in Twinned Spell being entirely reinvented (it now upcasts instead of casting twice).

[Psyren]

Alas, for the ranged smiting dream is still dead. More dead, in fact.

Thrown Smites still work as written. You have to use a melee weapon, but unlike 2014, the attack does not have to be a melee attack. Javelins, handaxes etc are still melee weapons in the latest rules glossary.



For the second part, how about if the loss of Advantage for the Brutal Strike were to be changed to a straight -5 to hit. Would that then fix the problem of "feels"?

That would be better than giving up all advantage, sure.

But my preferred solution is still only giving up RA-advantage, and that's what will be going into my survey.

[Kane0]

Thrown Smites still work as written. You have to use a melee weapon, but unlike 2014, the attack does not have to be a melee attack. Javelins, handaxes etc are still melee weapons in the latest rules glossary.


Meanwhile druids be cantripping from hundreds of feet away lol

[Psyren]

I mean I'm not a fan of these changes at all, so I'm inclined to see it more negatively, but in an objective sense, yes the class is still good. But. I feel they've decided the paladin is the Defense Class, and have shuffled things around to make it fit that image. I *loath* these types of changes. Let me build my own character darnit. 2014 paladin was an excellent defender, if you built them that way. But they also had other build options.

This is like "nope, paladins are holy warriors, and that means they're all about party support. And yah know what party support doesn't need?? Offense! Goodbye smite."

The playtest packages have real mixed bag of stuff; some of it is legitimately cool, other stuff, not so much. I like many of the individual changes. But the overall sense that classes are getting pushed further in the direction of "you picked X, that means your character does Y" is becoming more pronounced IMO. And that is an extremely bad trend for my continued interest in the game.

Even with Divine Smite as a leveled spell now, one area I could see Paladins benefiting is Bladetrips, like smiting off a Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, or the new True Strike.


Meanwhile druids be cantripping from hundreds of feet away lol

Yeah... at level 15... I find that ability really underwhelming.

[Bosh]

WRT paladins, they're probably the 5e class LEAST in need of changes as they're the class that works the best at what it's supposed to right out of the box without too much monkeying around and without breaking anything. Only real issue with it was the potential multi-classing abuse.

[GooeyChewie]

Even with Divine Smite as a leveled spell now, one area I could see Paladins benefiting is Bladetrips, like smiting off a Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade, or the new True Strike.

You know, I hadn’t thought of it until now, but that change does impact Barbarian/Paladin multi-class. With even the base Divine Smite being a spell now, you cannot use it during Rage.

[Oramac]

I mean I'm not a fan of these changes at all, so I'm inclined to see it more negatively, but in an objective sense, yes the class is still good. But. I feel they've decided the paladin is the Defense Class, and have shuffled things around to make it fit that image. I *loath* these types of changes. Let me build my own character darnit. 2014 paladin was an excellent defender, if you built them that way. But they also had other build options.

This is like "nope, paladins are holy warriors, and that means they're all about party support. And yah know what party support doesn't need?? Offense! Goodbye smite."

The playtest packages have real mixed bag of stuff; some of it is legitimately cool, other stuff, not so much. I like many of the individual changes. But the overall sense that classes are getting pushed further in the direction of "you picked X, that means your character does Y" is becoming more pronounced IMO. And that is an extremely bad trend for my continued interest in the game.

Fully agree. It really feels like WOTC has been talking to Blizzard about class design. Which is meant to be as insulting to WOTC as possible.


You know, I hadn’t thought of it until now, but that change does impact Barbarian/Paladin multi-class. With even the base Divine Smite being a spell now, you cannot use it during Rage.

In fairness to WOTC, however, we have not seen anything talking about the survey results for Playtest 6, so it's possible that the UA6 paladin will be changed due to feedback. I doubt it. But it's possible.

[Psyren]

In fairness to WOTC, however, we have not seen anything talking about the survey results for Playtest 6, so it's possible that the UA6 paladin will be changed due to feedback. I doubt it. But it's possible.

Actually, we did. Here's Crawford on the UA6 survey (it's in the Bastion bonus UA video):



The main messages we got from UA6 is that the most of the classes in it people are feeling really good about. So the rogue, the paladin, the cleric, the bard, and even the druid - the druid, uh, struggled the last time we came up - all of those classes received satisfaction scores in either the 70s or up into the 80s, with the Rogue overall score at 89% in that group. The class with the lowest satisfaction score was the Druid - but even the Druid made it into the 70s and many of the druid's individual features even made it up into the 80s in terms of satisfaction; like, people really are enjoying the new Elemental Fury, Wild Resurgence... so we continue to see a lot of positivity about new features that we've been introducing in the various classes.

There were a couple of pain points in this latest version of the Druid - the main ones being wild shape and the Circle of the Moon subclass. The other subclasses - Circle of the Land got 86%, that is a massive satisfaction improvement over the 2014 version. Circle of the Sea, the brand new subclass got 80%, and Circle of the Moon definitely improved, so we're on the right trajectory with it, but we need at least one more round with it in UA. So our plan is, the Druid base class will go back out in our next Player's Handbook dedicated Unearthed Arcana, mostly to give a revised version of the Circle of the Moon, because the base class of the Druid overall is getting thumbs up with mostly just wild shape and Archdruid needing a little more love.

TL;DR - Druid was the floor of UA6 and even that made it into the 70s, so Paladin had to have been higher than that - mid-70s at a minimum, possibly even 80s - and thus cleared the threshold. Hence it being done as far as public playtesting.

[P. G. Macer]

Actually, we did. Here's Crawford on the UA6 survey (it's in the Bastion bonus UA video):




TL;DR - Druid was the floor of UA6 and even that made it into the 70s, so Paladin had to have been higher than that - mid-70s at a minimum, possibly even 80s - and thus cleared the threshold. Hence it being done as far as public playtesting.

Ugh, as a paladin main in 2014-5e, that disappoints me. Bonus action spell Smite is both a huge and IMO unnecessary nerf, while the more reasonable nerf of Aura of Protection doesn’t seem to be happening. It honestly may be the dealbreaker for me whether to stick with 2014-5e or actually progress to 2024-5e.

[Oramac]

Actually, we did. Here's Crawford on the UA6 survey (it's in the Bastion bonus UA video):

TL;DR - Druid was the floor of UA6 and even that made it into the 70s, so Paladin had to have been higher than that - mid-70s at a minimum, possibly even 80s - and thus cleared the threshold. Hence it being done as far as public playtesting.

Crap, I forgot about the Bastion UA. lol. Thanks for the reminder.


Ugh, as a paladin main in 2014-5e, that disappoints me. Bonus action spell Smite is both a huge and IMO unnecessary nerf, while the more reasonable nerf of Aura of Protection doesn’t seem to be happening. It honestly may be the dealbreaker for me whether to stick with 2014-5e or actually progress to 2024-5e.

Same. If the Smite-as-a-spell thing goes to print, I will likely not buy the 2024 books.

[Arkhios]

If the Smite-as-a-spell thing goes to print, I will likely not buy the 2024 books.

That, or just ignore the part.

[Oramac]

That, or just ignore the part.

True. It will really depend on how much I like the rest of the book.

[Psyren]

Is paladin really that bad off though? Sure smite is a BA now, and 1/round as a result, that's definitely a nerf. But the smite spells don't take concentration either, so you can combine them with concentrating on things like Bless or Divine Favor or even Haste (e.g. Vengeance/Glory.) They also seem to have brought back smites being able to crit in UA6, unlike UA4. And most of the Channel Divinity options are a BA now too, so it's not like you'd have wanted to be grabbing PAM or Dual Wielder. Smite also works with both Unarmed Strikes and Thrown weapons now too. So to me it seems like the nerfs are offset by some material buffs.

And speaking of Channel Divinity, all the subclasses seem to have gotten buffed too. (There's room for debate on Ancients but overall I think it came out ahead of 2014.)

So while I can understand the feeling of disappointment around the smite nerf I think the Paladin as a whole got buffed. I certainly would want to try one in 2024.

[Oramac]

Is paladin really that bad off though?

Sigh. No, it's not. TBH, outside of the smite change, the UA6 paladin is good. I just really, really, REALLY hate the smite change.

[Boverk]

Sigh. No, it's not. TBH, outside of the smite change, the UA6 paladin is good. I just really, really, REALLY hate the smite change.

I think I feel the same honestly. I'm fine with the one smite per turn, but it being a spell hurts AND using the bonus action hurts.

[Psyren]

I get that, but I really do think smite is in a better place overall. People have been routinely dissatisfied with the perception that all martials get to do is move and attack; now that smite is a spell and all of them are concentration-free, you have a reason to actually give the other smite spells a try, especially since you don't have to prepare them. So now Paladins can go around routinely knocking enemies back and prone, or blinding them (at least one round without save) or faerie-firing them, or setting them on fire, or fearing them or stunning them etc, all stacking with their Weapon Masteries. There's a lot of technique and control built into these!

[Oramac]

I get that, but I really do think smite is in a better place overall. People have been routinely dissatisfied with the perception that all martials get to do is move and attack; now that smite is a spell and all of them are concentration-free, you have a reason to actually give the other smite spells a try, especially since you don't have to prepare them. So now Paladins can go around routinely knocking enemies back and prone, or blinding them (at least one round without save) or faerie-firing them, or setting them on fire, or fearing them or stunning them etc, all stacking with their Weapon Masteries. There's a lot of technique and control built into these!

All true, but they didn't need to change smite to make that happen. Just remove concentration from the existing smite spells and all of that still works. Hell, nearly everyone I know already houserules that the 2014 smite spells don't require concentration anyway.

[stoutstien]

All true, but they didn't need to change smite to make that happen. Just remove concentration from the existing smite spells and all of that still works. Hell, nearly everyone I know already houserules that the 2014 smite spells don't require concentration anyway.

That's scary with wrathful smite. It's already a death sentence for most NPCs with concentration.

[Arkhios]

Honestly honestly I don't mind the change all that much. I rather prefer that there are more options for the smites and they're all at equal standing. Or at least try to be.

Of course, my first character in 5th edition, proper (not including D&D Next playtest), was a dual wielding paladin, and that does kind of hurt due to how two-weapon fighting (apparently still) works. Then again, the character could just as well be a fighter. Or a Zealot barbarian.

[Sigreid]

Ugh, as a paladin main in 2014-5e, that disappoints me. Bonus action spell Smite is both a huge and IMO unnecessary nerf, while the more reasonable nerf of Aura of Protection doesn’t seem to be happening. It honestly may be the dealbreaker for me whether to stick with 2014-5e or actually progress to 2024-5e.

On the plus side, they can't actually make your table switch over. I'm not buying the new books as things stand. It's fine.

[Oramac]

That's scary with wrathful smite. It's already a death sentence for most NPCs with concentration.

Sorry. Let me restate that. Many people I know specify that the smite spells don't require concentration to cast, but ongoing effects do. So I can concentrate on something else, and use Wrathful Smite on hit, but the effect only lasts until the creature would normally make its check (in this case, succeeding automatically).

[Psyren]

That's scary with wrathful smite. It's already a death sentence for most NPCs with concentration.

Agreed - even with concentration, trading your bonus action for at least one of their actions is already crazy good. I totally get why they toned this one down.



Of course, my first character in 5th edition, proper (not including D&D Next playtest), was a dual wielding paladin, and that does kind of hurt due to how two-weapon fighting (apparently still) works. Then again, the character could just as well be a fighter. Or a Zealot barbarian.

You can still dual-wield just fine as a paladin - just use Nick weapons like scimitars and your bonus action is free and clear for smiting. You don't even need high Dex - finesse weapons work just fine with Strength.

[ZRN]

It occurs to me that playing a monk, especially level 10+, ESPECIALLY Open Hands, will involve making a ton of decisions to optimize action economy and ki use.

Actions:
Attack
Dodge
Dash
Disengage
Hide
Use Magic Device
etc...

Bonus Actions (0 ki):
1 Unarmed Attack
Dash
Disengage

Bonus Actions (1 ki, levels 2-9)
Flurry: 2 Unarmed Attacks
Disengage+Dodge
Dash+Disengage

Bonus Actions (1 ki, level 10+)
Flurry: 3 Unarmed Attacks
Disengage+Dodge+Temp HP
Dash+Disengage+Carry a Teammate

[Slipjig]

There are a lot of choices there, but even in a relatively fast combat probably takes at least ten minutes to get through the initiative order at most tables, and that should be plenty of time to figure out your next turn. I mean, sure, if you want to calculate the math to the fourth decimal place for EVERY possible thing you could do to find the ABSOLUTE OPTIMAL action every round, that's probably not feasible.

It's usually pretty obvious whether "all out attack", "stay engaged, but fight defensively", or "skirmish" is the best option. And if you are in a situation where you would need to break out the Excel sheet to figure out which one is correct, that probably means it's more or less a toss-up, so go with whichever one is going to be more fun at the table.

[ZRN]

There are a lot of choices there, but even in a relatively fast combat probably takes at least ten minutes to get through the initiative order at most tables, and that should be plenty of time to figure out your next turn. I mean, sure, if you want to calculate the math to the fourth decimal place for EVERY possible thing you could do to find the ABSOLUTE OPTIMAL action every round, that's probably not feasible.

It's usually pretty obvious whether "all out attack", "stay engaged, but fight defensively", or "skirmish" is the best option. And if you are in a situation where you would need to break out the Excel sheet to figure out which one is correct, that probably means it's more or less a toss-up, so go with whichever one is going to be more fun at the table.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm happy about it. If a level 10 wizard can pick a spell every round a monk can pick between Dodge+Flurry+Step of the Wind or Flurry+Step of the Wind+Hide or whatever other option makes sense. And I don't see math coming into play here - it's more about considering resources (ki) and quite a few possible bonus+action combinations.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Hey, this is the last UA, right?

It'd be interest to compile a TL;DR or all UAs, as some classes and changes went around more than once, and see where everyone is more or less expected to stand.

[ZRN]

Hey, this is the last UA, right?

It'd be interest to compile a TL;DR or all UAs, as some classes and changes went around more than once, and see where everyone is more or less expected to stand.

I think they're not counting the previous one (with bastions) as a PHB playtest, so there's one more after this.

[Kane0]

Itll be reaaaally cut down to the wire if theres one more and they actually expect to get actionable feedback about it.

[animewatcha]

Oddball interaction. Mercy monk. Action - Healer feat. Bonus action spend 1 ki point to heal with bonus action.

[Psyren]

I feel like I owe Path of the World Tree an apology.

...Okay, Vitality of the Tree is meh. Vitality Surge is a tiny amount. Life-Giving Force though is pretty solid, handing out +2d6-4d6 THP every single round to a nearby ally is quite a lot... but in combat, the range means you pretty much need another frontliner in your group, and ideally they have to be taking more hits than you are to make use of them. I feel like for a lot of barbarian parties that's not going to be common, but when it is this feature is pretty good.

But Branches of the Tree is a lot better than I originally gave it credit for. Super-Sentinel Suckage from 30ft away; just end your turn within 30ft of a low-strength enemy and bam, they're stuck to you like velcro if they can't teleport because you reduced their speed to zero. Or you can throw them into the middle of your party. And if you don't need to move an enemy, you can reposition allies instead.

Battering Roots gives you extra reach and free Topple/Push with any weapon, which means you can grab a Cleave, Graze or Sap weapon and benefit from 2-3 masteries at once. Combine with a reach weapon and you'll be rocking 20ft reach for even more area denial.

Lastly, Travel Along the Tree gives you at-will Misty Step alone, and 1/rage Dimension Door with your whole party.

I was originally not very interested in it, but the mobility and lockdown options it offers seem second to none.


Hey, this is the last UA, right?

It'd be interest to compile a TL;DR or all UAs, as some classes and changes went around more than once, and see where everyone is more or less expected to stand.

That could be a tall order as there are 12 classes, 48 subclasses, and a bunch of feats, spells, and species spread across the various UAs. I could summarize a specific one...?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Itll be reaaaally cut down to the wire if theres one more and they actually expect to get actionable feedback about it.

Yeah. I've heard that lead times for big book deals are often multiple months. So January--February at the very latest--is probably the absolute deadline for having the final layout to the typesetter.

[animewatcha]

So is it starting to sound like that the 'player's handbook' is gonna premiere too soon and then players ignore like half of it and revert to 2014 / tasha / appropriate books for their games?

[gloryblaze]

Hey, this is the last UA, right?

It'd be interest to compile a TL;DR or all UAs, as some classes and changes went around more than once, and see where everyone is more or less expected to stand.



That could be a tall order as there are 12 classes, 48 subclasses, and a bunch of feats, spells, and species spread across the various UAs. I could summarize a specific one...?

Someone on Reddit has been doing it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/xxjyub/onednd_playtest_collation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) It's up-to-date with UA 9.

[Kane0]

So is it starting to sound like that the 'player's handbook' is gonna premiere too soon and then players ignore like half of it and revert to 2014 / tasha / appropriate books for their games?

Just about sums up my group

[Psyren]

So is it starting to sound like that the 'player's handbook' is gonna premiere too soon and then players ignore like half of it and revert to 2014 / tasha / appropriate books for their games?

At least some of you will, I'm sure.

As for me - if that poster is any indication of the art inside... 🤤


Someone on Reddit has been doing it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/xxjyub/onednd_playtest_collation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) It's up-to-date with UA 9.

Good ole Reddit!

[Arkhios]

You can still dual-wield just fine as a paladin - just use Nick weapons like scimitars and your bonus action is free and clear for smiting. You don't even need high Dex - finesse weapons work just fine with Strength.

Well, there's just one but: the character is/was kind of a "barbarian in paladin's clothing", dual wielding two large (one-handed versatile) weapons* with high strength (18 from the start). Unless there are one-handed (versatile) Nick weapons, I'm going to have to revisualize the concept (and probably just forget dual wielding and go with the second best option: massive maul).

*Oramac might remember it; initially the character had Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder, and with DM's blessing, was able to dual wield with his weapon and shield (and apply Dual Wielder's +1 to AC on top of the shield's +2), but later on, I felt it was a bit cheesy and probably not exactly RAI, or even RAW.

[Amechra]

Itll be reaaaally cut down to the wire if theres one more and they actually expect to get actionable feedback about it.

This is, of course, assuming that they do public playtesting in order to gather actionable feedback. My suspicion is that the goal is consensus building more than anything — they put out a playtest doc, scrap anything that gets enough of a backlash, and then anything that gets kept gets a boost in legitimacy because of the idea that it was popular enough.

It's honestly pretty interesting to compare how they're doing this "playtest" and how the Next playtest was handled. To compare, the first packet for that playtest was released in May 2012 and the last one was released in September 2013 (so about 16 months), with a year passing before they released the PHB (the basic rules came out two months earlier). And, more importantly, those ten playtest packets were self-contained — every single packet had adventures that a DM could send their players through, so that you could actually playtest the rules.

In contrast, the current "open playtest" started with a PDF released in August 2022 and is probably ending in November 2023 (so about 15 months), and they're apparently planning on releasing the PHB in May (about 6 months later). More importantly, though, the PDFs we've gotten have been closer to errata documents than anything, and any information on what else they're changing (including any changes they're making the the DM's side of the screen) aren't really available in a single place. Like, as far as I know, we haven't seen any examples of what a monster from the 2024 MM is going to look like (though we can probably hazard some pretty good guesses), which is kinda important for giving informed feedback of how the new classes feel in combat.

To be clear, I don't think they're collecting the surveys and then tossing them in the trash... but I feel like "the anonymized opinions of a bunch of random people on the internet" are probably pretty low on their list of feedback sources.

[Bosh]

This is, of course, assuming that they do public playtesting in order to gather actionable feedback. My suspicion is that the goal is consensus building more than anything — they put out a playtest doc, scrap anything that gets enough of a backlash, and then anything that gets kept gets a boost in legitimacy because of the idea that it was popular enough.

It's honestly pretty interesting to compare how they're doing this "playtest" and how the Next playtest was handled. To compare, the first packet for that playtest was released in May 2012 and the last one was released in September 2013 (so about 16 months), with a year passing before they released the PHB (the basic rules came out two months earlier). And, more importantly, those ten playtest packets were self-contained — every single packet had adventures that a DM could send their players through, so that you could actually playtest the rules.

In contrast, the current "open playtest" started with a PDF released in August 2022 and is probably ending in November 2023 (so about 15 months), and they're apparently planning on releasing the PHB in May (about 6 months later). More importantly, though, the PDFs we've gotten have been closer to errata documents than anything, and any information on what else they're changing (including any changes they're making the the DM's side of the screen) aren't really available in a single place. Like, as far as I know, we haven't seen any examples of what a monster from the 2024 MM is going to look like (though we can probably hazard some pretty good guesses), which is kinda important for giving informed feedback of how the new classes feel in combat.

To be clear, I don't think they're collecting the surveys and then tossing them in the trash... but I feel like "the anonymized opinions of a bunch of random people on the internet" are probably pretty low on their list of feedback sources.

Yeah, I don't think there's much actual playtesting going on and if there is WotC doesn't seem to be trying to track it separately from random opening. This isn't going to make it any easier for WotC to notice things like rogues being pretty obviously the worst class after T1 now (absent dedicated focus on reaction sneak attack shenanigans) being a real problem.

Just randos reading through rules can come to a lot of weird conclusions. Apparently before 3.0ed people thought that dwarf monks being OPed was once of the biggest balance problems of the edition.

[Psyren]

A shorter playtest cycle than in 2014 doesn't seem that odd (or conspiratorial) to me. 5e ultimately didn't need that much work to update - certainly not as much as it took to build it in the first place. And of course there's the necessity of releasing next year while "50th anniversary" hype is at its height, or as close to that as they can get.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Someone on Reddit has been doing it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/xxjyub/onednd_playtest_collation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) It's up-to-date with UA 9.

Good god, look at the formating on that. That's amazing.