PHB U8 Survey Results Released

[Psyren]

Finally, some news from the devs


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

1) Confirmation this was the last PHB UA, however there will be further iteration internally as well as some new things (e.g. spells) that we won't see until the book releases.

2) Everything in the packet scored 70s or higher.

3) Druid and Moon Druid scored 70s, Barbarian and World Tree scored 80s, Monk scored 90s for most of its features and is now "most improved" class ahead of the Ranger.

4) New healing spells scored 80s. The new Conjure spells scored high 70s/80s.

5) The May release date leaked during PAX Unplugged was never true and surprised Crawford when he saw it. The books will still be getting worked on in May.

6) Future UAs may get released to test things like the new encounter builder but nothing to announce at this time.

[P. G. Macer]

Very surprising in my opinion, I expected to see some lower-scoring things here.

I am particularly surprised at how well the new "conjure" spells scored given how they don’t even remotely capture the fantasy that their 2014 versions did, even though they are light years ahead of those versions in terms of game balance.
My best guess is that since the population of survey-takers is likely much smaller than back in August of 2022 (for a multitude of reasons, most of which are not worth getting into here), there’s now a devoted core of public playtesters who have intuited how WotC responds to feedback, and their tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and revert to the 2014 version on anything that gets too low of a score rather than improve it further for the game’s health’s sake.

[Psyren]

The results don't surprise me. Some prominent youtubers (Insight Check, Treantmonk, Pack Tactics and d4) did a level 15 playtest last week (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JjF07y90A0), and d4 played a multiclass Sea Druid using the new Conjure Animals and Conjure Minor Elementals to great effect. The latter is overtuned (it's essentially Spirit Shroud++) but the one that really helped them dish out the damage was the new Conjure Animals; it was a lot less disruptive in play than its 2014 counterpart would have been, and also much more useful since it wouldn't have been subject to the second encounter's lair actions and large AoE.

The real star though was Treantmonk's Four Elements Monk 15, which got a lot of punch (no pun intended) out of the monk's deflect, disciplined survivor, and extreme mobility. His ability to grapple with Dex and pull/drop enemies into his allies' area effects proved to be very strong.

[Oramac]

1) Confirmation this was the last PHB UA

Boo. There was a lot of stuff that needs a lot of work. Hopefully their internal testing covers it all.

I am interested to see their Encounter Builder. I've been personally experimenting with a Budget System of my own for building encounters. I'm interested to see if the one Jeremy mentioned is similar.

[Monster Manuel]

I am particularly surprised at how well the new "conjure" spells scored given how they don’t even remotely capture the fantasy that their 2014 versions did, even though they are light years ahead of those versions in terms of game balance.


Same here, on this one. if they scored in the high 70s and 80s, I suspect it was because people wanted the old versions gone, not because the new versions were anything special. At least, that's my opinion on them: generally lackluster and derivative spells (excepting minor elementals which is a little crazy), whose main selling point is that they overwrite the busted 2014 versions. "Well, at least they don't break anything now" is not the ringing endorsement that they think it is...

[Schwann145]

1) Confirmation this was the last PHB UA
Well, RIP Bard, I guess, since the last time we saw it was in it's pre-reverted state. :smallfrown:

I'm also surprised (and disappointed a little) that people so love the new Monk that they're willing to totally overlook how incredibly nerfed it was as a party member. For a game based around group play, the class didn't offer much to contribute outside of itself before, but now it offers basically nothing.

[Psyren]

Well, RIP Bard, I guess, since the last time we saw it was in it's pre-reverted state. :smallfrown:

I'm also surprised (and disappointed a little) that people so love the new Monk that they're willing to totally overlook how incredibly nerfed it was as a party member. For a game based around group play, the class didn't offer much to contribute outside of itself before, but now it offers basically nothing.

No group play? Seriously? They can actually grapple now to lock down enemies, be team taxi across the battlefield including up walls, don't have to worry about being dominated or scared off the front line unlike other melee, reposition to wherever the backline needs them to be, and all that's just the base class before we factor in subclasses. They're better team players than ever.

[Zevox]

I'm also a little surprised that the new Conjure spells went over without a hitch. Well, perhaps more disappointed than surprised, but I was expecting them to just squeak by rather than get solid scores. Just +1 to the changes they're making that I dislike though.

Not surprised by the rest, though that's as much out of resignation as anything. My last bit of hope for anything I'd greatly like coming from this died when they decided the Four Elements Monk didn't even need a second pass.

[Hael]

It doesnt surprise me that things are polling high.

At this point in the process, one would expect a massive selection bias on who actually responds. Eg a great deal of people were turned off by previous UAs might not even respond, and that would need to be normalized or accounted for (eg you might introduce a question with an unchanging state that had a known answer in a previous UA, reappear just to calibrate responses).

But I was looking for that sort of check, and found none. Therefore I suspect they did no such thing.

So I mean, good luck!

[KorvinStarmast]

Very surprising in my opinion, I expected to see some lower-scoring things here. I suspect that their reviewer base has shrunk.

and their tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and revert to the 2014 version on anything that gets too low of a score rather than improve it further for the game’s health’s sake.

"Well, at least they don't break anything now" is not the ringing endorsement that they think it is... Our druid just used conjure animals to generate 8 giant lizards and have them force march/sprint until they drop, twice to get through a swampy area faster than on foot. The new spells don't allow for this kind of utility spell use. I used to conjure up a dire wolf pair for my bard and my halfling paladin to ride into battle on. I guess fun is no longer authorized. :smallyuk:

I'm also a little surprised that the new Conjure spells went over without a hitch. Well, perhaps more disappointed than surprised, but I was expecting them to just squeak by rather than get solid scores. They decided that those who can't figure out how to manage minions at the table (it takes cooperation between player and DM to do that) need to be coddled. So they did that.

It doesnt surprise me that things are polling high. The reviewer population is in decline, I suspect

At this point in the process, one would expect a massive selection bias on who actually responds. I surmise the same.

[Merlecory]

(eg you might introduce a question with an unchanging state that had a known answer in a previous UA, reappear just to calibrate responses).

But I was looking for that sort of check, and found none. Therefore I suspect they did no such thing.

So I mean, good luck!

To give them the benefit of the doubt, people who take the survey did do do from an account they had to log into. You could compare the average score they have over time to try to evaluate if they genuinely shifted opinion. You could also ask the same question about two very similar things, and use that to roughly estimate sentiment.
Since you knew the proportion of positive and negative responses, you watch if people who were negative shift, or just leave. You can track compositional changes that way




As an aside: RIP 4 elements monk. Your subclass fantasy will be missed.

[Damon_Tor]

The final playtest survey response was always going to be reported as positive regardless of how players actually responded. First and foremost, this is a marketing tactic, and the "new coke" phase of giving us bad content on purpose so they can appear to be benevolent by rolling those changes back is over.

[KorvinStarmast]

The final playtest survey response was always going to be reported as positive regardless of how players actually responded. First and foremost, this is a marketing tactic, and the "new coke" phase of giving us bad content on purpose so they can appear to be benevolent by rolling those changes back is over. I wish I could disagree with you, but I got nothin'.

[Kane0]

Mildly interesting, but i'm one of those that fell off so i'm not exactly invested enough to be surprised.

[Psyren]

Even if the falloff since the first UA was massive - let's be generous and say a full 75% abandoned the process before now - that's still over 10,000 respondents, far more than any other feedback avenue they could have pursued, and certainly larger than any single D&D forum. It's orders of magnitude larger than the active participants on this one, DDB, and ENWorld combined. So I think the results are still valuable.


The final playtest survey response was always going to be reported as positive regardless of how players actually responded. First and foremost, this is a marketing tactic, and the "new coke" phase of giving us bad content on purpose so they can appear to be benevolent by rolling those changes back is over.

Heh, if that's the case, I wish they'd have saved Warlock spell slots and Wild Shape templates for last then :smallbiggrin:

[Envyus]

Our druid just used conjure animals to generate 8 giant lizards and have them force march/sprint until they drop, twice to get through a swampy area faster than on foot. The new spells don't allow for this kind of utility spell use. I used to conjure up a dire wolf pair for my bard and my halfling paladin to ride into battle on. I guess fun is no longer authorized. :smallyuk:

This is a good thing in my opinion cause that use is stepping on the toes of a bunch of other things.

Why ever use Phantom Steed when you can do this.

[Amechra]

Even if the falloff since the first UA was massive - let's be generous and say a full 75% abandoned the process before now - that's still over 10,000 respondents, far more than any other feedback avenue they could have pursued, and certainly larger than any single D&D forum. It's orders of magnitude larger than the active participants on this one, DDB, and ENWorld combined. So I think the results are still valuable.

I mean, this assumes that "number of people offering feedback" is a good metric for evaluating how successful the feedback process is... which I have my doubts about? To mangle a phrase, one playtest is worth a thousand survey results... especially since none of the people responding to those surveys could necessarily playtest in a useful way, since the UAs have been drip-feeding us player-facing tweaks instead of giving us a vertical slice of the "new" game.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a good thing in my opinion cause that use is stepping on the toes of a bunch of other things.

Why ever use Phantom Steed when you can do this.
No, it steps on nobody's toes.
There are usually 4 players and 12 different classes. In this party, there is no Paladin.
Druid, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Monk, Rogue.
i
Also, Paladin gets one steed for himself, while in this case, a druid being a support caster and a team player. And the steeds go away after an hour so multiple casts of a 3rd level spell are required.
Druid was being imaginative and clever. (And he wild shaped into giant lizard to keep pace)
As Sergeant Helka would advise:

Lighten up, Francis.

[Psyren]

I mean, this assumes that "number of people offering feedback" is a good metric for evaluating how successful the feedback process is... which I have my doubts about? To mangle a phrase, one playtest is worth a thousand survey results... especially since none of the people responding to those surveys could necessarily playtest in a useful way, since the UAs have been drip-feeding us player-facing tweaks instead of giving us a vertical slice of the "new" game.

I mean... if the changes between, say, the initial and most recent versions of the Monk, Rogue, and Barbarian is due to survey feedback, I consider that an unequivocal win for surveys. Do I think the public feedback was harmful in some respects, absolutely, but I consider the experience to have been broadly positive overall.

[Schwann145]

No group play? Seriously? (1)They can actually grapple now to lock down enemies, (2)be team taxi across the battlefield including up walls, (3)don't have to worry about being dominated or scared off the front line unlike other melee, (4)reposition to wherever the backline needs them to be, and all that's just the base class before we factor in subclasses. They're better team players than ever.
1- Yeah, they got a SAD buff for grappling, which has been necessary ever since 2014 built the class wrong by encouraging dumping Strength (:smalltongue:) but that just improves them from "utter garbage" to "can now participate." Monk is still not a grappling class. It gains no way to deal with size differences. It gains no Advantage or Expertise or any other buff to make them particularly good at grappling (the way a Barbarian, Rogue, etc can be).
Anyone can grapple. Nothing about the class is making them exceptional at it, even with the buff.
2- Methinks you're overestimating this ability (the way most people always overestimate Monk's actual speed), but fair enough. This is new party utility. Incredibly limited party utility, but party utility all the same. (Worth pointing out that you get none of this until level 9 and 10, which is nearing the end of most Monk careers.)
3- Personal survival isn't party utility, no matter how hard you try to twist it into being so. Monk has always been very selfishly defensive in it's abilities, and this hasn't changed. Monk makes itself very good against save effects, fear, etc. Compare to, say, Paladin, which makes itself and all it's nearby friends very good against save effects, fear etc.
4- Being fast (which, as I've argued in the past, Monk isn't as fast as advertised by most folks) isn't party utility.

Now, let's take a quick glance at some subclasses...
*Shadow loses all of it's spell-sharing such as Darkvision and PWT*
*Elements loses spells in favor of elemental-themed physical attack/damage buffs*

Oof! That alone is a massive nerf to party utility!

[Crusher]

5) The May release date leaked during PAX Unplugged was never true and surprised Crawford when he saw it. The books will still be getting worked on in May.

This is the one that surprises me the least and pleases me the most. A print run like this is a sizeable creature. Fiddling with mechanics means the layout can't be 100% locked down, and not having the layout done less than 4 months before they want it available in stores isn't courting disaster, its marrying it.

Nothing is ever perfect, but last time I went through stuff, I felt they were in the ballpark but not quite there yet. An Aug/Sept release date (picking months out of the air) gives them a couple more months to iterate, while still allowing time to get the layout finalized, proofs checked, etc before printing and delivery. I feel a lot better about a late-summer/early-fall launch than May.

[paladinn]

I am definitely looking forward to the new books when they come out. But honestly I wonder how much of the playtest and results is going to be ignored. I mean, 5e could stand to be tweaked (in the case of the Ranger, a Lot); but by and large it's a fine game. And that's coming from a mostly-C&C guy.

Has anyone looked at Tales of the Valiant? It seems to have a lot of 5.5-isms baked in, and it looks better than I thought. I'm considering a ToV/5e hybrid. But then everything I do is a hybrid now :)

[Psyren]

1- Yeah, they got a SAD buff for grappling, which has been necessary ever since 2014 built the class wrong by encouraging dumping Strength (:smalltongue:) but that just improves them from "utter garbage" to "can now participate." Monk is still not a grappling class. It gains no way to deal with size differences. It gains no Advantage or Expertise or any other buff to make them particularly good at grappling (the way a Barbarian, Rogue, etc can be).
Anyone can grapple. Nothing about the class is making them exceptional at it, even with the buff.
2- Methinks you're overestimating this ability (the way most people always overestimate Monk's actual speed), but fair enough. This is new party utility. Incredibly limited party utility, but party utility all the same. (Worth pointing out that you get none of this until level 9 and 10, which is nearing the end of most Monk careers.)
3- Personal survival isn't party utility, no matter how hard you try to twist it into being so. Monk has always been very selfishly defensive in it's abilities, and this hasn't changed. Monk makes itself very good against save effects, fear, etc. Compare to, say, Paladin, which makes itself and all it's nearby friends very good against save effects, fear etc.
4- Being fast (which, as I've argued in the past, Monk isn't as fast as advertised by most folks) isn't party utility.

Now, let's take a quick glance at some subclasses...
*Shadow loses all of it's spell-sharing such as Darkvision and PWT*
*Elements loses spells in favor of elemental-themed physical attack/damage buffs*

Oof! That alone is a massive nerf to party utility!

1) Actually you're incorrect, they do; remember grapple is a Dex/Str save now, so if they land a Stunning Strike, which the monk will be attempting anyway since failure means free damage, the enemy autofails against being grappled. In addition, monks are great at repositioning grappled foes due to their speed counteracting the Slowed condition, both base speed and resource-free BA-Dash. (If you haven't already, I highly recommend watching Treantmonk's recent 1DnD playtest featuring a 4E Human Monk 15, this came up quite a lot.)

2) You can taxi party members before those levels, doing so just requires grappling them (which again, is a saving throw that they can choose to fail now) and slows you down. The later ability merely removes those drawbacks.

3/4) It's absolutely party utility. If you only have room for one tank in the party, Monk is now a contender and being more resilient to these effects and being able to get to where they're needed most is a plus. As you yourself keep saying, this is a team game.

Regarding Elements, those spells were nigh useless anyway, especially for their cost. As for Shadow, I'd be very surprised if PwT doesn't eat a fat nerf in 2024 (it needs one), but I did ask for Shadow to get it back in my survey regardless.



Has anyone looked at Tales of the Valiant? It seems to have a lot of 5.5-isms baked in, and it looks better than I thought. I'm considering a ToV/5e hybrid. But then everything I do is a hybrid now :)

I stopped keeping up with it because they made the strange decision to paywall their playtest to backers only.

[Oramac]

Has anyone looked at Tales of the Valiant? It seems to have a lot of 5.5-isms baked in, and it looks better than I thought. I'm considering a ToV/5e hybrid. But then everything I do is a hybrid now :)

I'm a backer of ToV. I quite like the majority of what they're doing, though not everything. Which is to be expected, I suppose. I will most likely pull ToV and 1D&D rules together, combine them with Nimble, and make my own Frankenstein game for my tables.

[Kane0]

I'm a backer of ToV. I quite like the majority of what they're doing, though not everything. Which is to be expected, I suppose. I will most likely pull ToV and 1D&D rules together, combine them with Nimble, and make my own Frankenstein game for my tables.

They're all kin, may as well go with a 5th FLAILSNAILS approach.

[ZRN]

It doesnt surprise me that things are polling high.

At this point in the process, one would expect a massive selection bias on who actually responds. Eg a great deal of people were turned off by previous UAs might not even respond, and that would need to be normalized or accounted for (eg you might introduce a question with an unchanging state that had a known answer in a previous UA, reappear just to calibrate responses).

But I was looking for that sort of check, and found none. Therefore I suspect they did no such thing.

So I mean, good luck!

Is your supposition here that this selection bias happened entirely between the 6th and 8th playtest packets? Because their playtest 6 monk got abysmal feedback (I'm sure; don't think they ever gave us numbers for that one?) and the playtest 8 monk did great.

[ZRN]

The final playtest survey response was always going to be reported as positive regardless of how players actually responded. First and foremost, this is a marketing tactic, and the "new coke" phase of giving us bad content on purpose so they can appear to be benevolent by rolling those changes back is over.

I'll be the first to say that I have NO idea why rogues and monks started with terrible playtest versions before switching to much-improved versions, especially since they're the only two classes that really followed that pattern. But, come on. The stuff in the 8th playtest, particularly the monk revamp, was genuinely good. Not just "at least they're not making things worse," but both more powerful and more fun to play. The whole thing about the "New Coke" tactic (other than it not being true) is that Coke ended up with the exact same "classic" product they started with, but people allegedly appreciated it more because it had been threatened. That's not at all what happened here; they're actually making big changes to the existing product.

[Psyren]

I'll be the first to say that I have NO idea why rogues and monks started with terrible playtest versions before switching to much-improved versions, especially since they're the only two classes that really followed that pattern. But, come on. The stuff in the 8th playtest, particularly the monk revamp, was genuinely good. Not just "at least they're not making things worse," but both more powerful and more fun to play. The whole thing about the "New Coke" tactic (other than it not being true) is that Coke ended up with the exact same "classic" product they started with, but people allegedly appreciated it more because it had been threatened. That's not at all what happened here; they're actually making big changes to the existing product.

Your facts and logic have no place here.

As far as your first question, I do understand what they were going for with the original rogue, they were trying to remove their reliance on off-turn sneak attack as that was a friction point for the rogue during other turns. What they failed to recognize is that some friction points are good, which led to them removing something rogue players at most skill levels found genuinely fun as well as failing to adequately compensate us for its removal, and the feedback reflected that.

[Blatant Beast]

It doesnt surprise me that things are polling high.

At this point in the process, one would expect a massive selection bias on who actually responds. Eg a great deal of people were turned off by previous UAs might not even respond,

The above is true for me. I have not responded to a Survey in some time. Anecdotally, of the 8 people I play with regularly, no one else follows, (and some remain mostly unaware of),One D&D.

I would love to see data regarding one’s general impression of One D&D between different segments of the gaming community.

I wonder if the fatted livestock….errr loyal subscribers of D&D Beyond have noticeably different attitudes toward One D&D vs those that have not entered the walled kingdom of D&D-land.

[Oramac]

The above is true for me. I have not responded to a Survey in some time. Anecdotally, of the 8 people I play with regularly, no one else follows, (and some remain mostly unaware of),One D&D.

I would love to see data regarding one’s general impression of One D&D between different segments of the gaming community.

I wonder if the fatted livestock….errr loyal subscribers of D&D Beyond have noticeably different attitudes toward One D&D vs those that have not entered the walled kingdom of D&D-land.

I've had similar experiences. I play regularly with about a dozen people across 3 games, and about half of them are highly loyal DDB subscribers. Of all the players (including DMs), I'd say maybe 1/3 of them are even aware of OneD&D. Of those, none of them are following it with any kind of passion. At best, they're tangentially aware that changes are coming, but have no idea what they are.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

The final playtest survey response was always going to be reported as positive regardless of how players actually responded. First and foremost, this is a marketing tactic, and the "new coke" phase of giving us bad content on purpose so they can appear to be benevolent by rolling those changes back is over.

Tbf their surveys have been terrible since day one and unless they literally read the writing in each one (and don't just use a program to skim for keywords) their play test survey was never going to give them good data to interpret (which, interpreting the data is a whole other issue... Like, ppl have different opinions on power, what is good, and all that).

Playtests surveys like this are more of a farce than anything.

Two people could rate a class highly for two different and opposite reasons. Or rate them opposites for the exact same reason. Or rate them opposites for opposite reasons. There's a large subset of D&D players that (edit fat thumbs) unironically thinks that Fighters should just be some random dude who works with real world physical and philosophy. Other people look at Weapon Masteries and think that's good for the fighter class as they were presented.
Others may look at Weapon Masteries and think that they're better than the old fighter so might as well put them in.

Subjective is what it is.

There's a lot of stuff that they probably aren't going to look at, skim for key words, and yeah they can lie through their teeth since this is all a PR tactic.

Survey writing and analysis is so interesting it's a shame it gets no respect.

[Psyren]

They definitely read the written feedback, even Dan Dillon (who was laid off and has no reason to toe the line) has reconfirmed this without being asked to.


I've had similar experiences. I play regularly with about a dozen people across 3 games, and about half of them are highly loyal DDB subscribers. Of all the players (including DMs), I'd say maybe 1/3 of them are even aware of OneD&D. Of those, none of them are following it with any kind of passion. At best, they're tangentially aware that changes are coming, but have no idea what they are.

As long as folks buy the new PHB, I don't think WotC will care whether they do so enthusiastically or out of curiosity.

For me, new mechanics aside, I'm most excited for every subclass getting art this time around. And if that Dwarf Fighter art is any indication the new PHB is going to look amazing.

[Blatant Beast]

For me, new mechanics aside, I'm most excited for every subclass getting art this time around. And if that Dwarf Fighter art is any indication the new PHB is going to look amazing.

Midjourney, for the win!
https://www.polygon.com/24029754/wizards-coast-magic-the-gathering-ai-art-marketing-image

[Psyren]

I'm referring to this art actually: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2023/12/take-a-peek-at-the-2024-dd-players-handbook.html

Regarding the MTG marketing promo nontroversy, even if I cared about MTG, that had an easy explanation which has been litigated to death in other threads here.

[ZRN]

I've had similar experiences. I play regularly with about a dozen people across 3 games, and about half of them are highly loyal DDB subscribers. Of all the players (including DMs), I'd say maybe 1/3 of them are even aware of OneD&D. Of those, none of them are following it with any kind of passion. At best, they're tangentially aware that changes are coming, but have no idea what they are.

I think that's because, despite some of the conspiracy theories on this thread, they haven't really done a marketing push yet. The first book is almost a year out. And it takes a very particular brand of nerd to care about the details of subtle rules changes that might be implemented in 10 months, even in a game they play a lot.

[animorte]

Very their tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and revert to the 2014 version on anything that gets too low of a score rather than improve it further for the game’s health’s sake.
This was certainly one of my problems throughout the play test. They should have given more time to the entire process.


"Well, at least they don't break anything now" is not the ringing endorsement that they think it is...
I also believe this carries a greater weight than the chassis is prepared to bear adequately, that being the dev team.


I will most likely pull ToV and 1D&D rules together, combine them with Nimble, and make my own Frankenstein game for my tables.
Such is the true way. I decided on a very similar quest, to which allotted time provides little avail.

[Catullus64]

For me, new mechanics aside, I'm most excited for every subclass getting art this time around. And if that Dwarf Fighter art is any indication the new PHB is going to look amazing.

I'm excited for this too! The artwork in the 2014 book, while it has some real gems, is very inconsistent. If the preview images are anything to go by, they've addressed my most recurring problem with 5e character art, which is that too much of it simply consists of characters posing in the void, rather than scenes of characters in action. Wish they would credit the individual artists more prominently, but pretty sure that ship has sailed.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

This was certainly one of my problems throughout the play test. They should have given more time to the entire process.




Just like back in like 2013...

The rushed nature really feels like when a company has X plans, and will be doing X, and so they collect data to show that X is the right way to go.

As my manager once said... "If you cut out the outliers, you can get the data you want."

How do you figure out the outliers?

"It's the data you don't want"



I'm excited for this too! The artwork in the 2014 book, while it has some real gems, is very inconsistent. If the preview images are anything to go by, they've addressed my most recurring problem with 5e character art, which is that too much of it simply consists of characters posing in the void, rather than scenes of characters in action. Wish they would credit the individual artists more prominently, but pretty sure that ship has sailed.

Wasn't a lot of the art from the 2014 book from 4e/Essentials? The Bard and Barbarian come to mind.

Which 4e did this with 3e too of course.

Doubt I'll ever pick up 2024 book but I do hope it has new non-AI art.

[Psyren]

Just like back in like 2013...

The rushed nature really feels like when a company has X plans, and will be doing X, and so they collect data to show that X is the right way to go.

As my manager once said... "If you cut out the outliers, you can get the data you want."

How do you figure out the outliers?

"It's the data you don't want"

As long as the data show literally anything that isn't "stick with 2014 5e" people will think they're lying, so they might as well forge ahead.


I'm excited for this too! The artwork in the 2014 book, while it has some real gems, is very inconsistent. If the preview images are anything to go by, they've addressed my most recurring problem with 5e character art, which is that too much of it simply consists of characters posing in the void, rather than scenes of characters in action. Wish they would credit the individual artists more prominently, but pretty sure that ship has sailed.

I'd say finding the individual artist responsible for a piece isn't too hard if you really want to know. Most of them include the WotC commissions in their portfolio as we see on the MTG side. Worst case scenario you can crowdsource Reddit or Twitter to track them down for you.


This was certainly one of my problems throughout the play test. They should have given more time to the entire process.

That wouldn't have happened; the only real way to justify all the design time this took was to coincide the release with all the free publicity accompanying D&D's 50th anniversary. For example, there might even be a Google Doodle planned for it like there was for Doctor Who's 50th, which will get a massive number of free eyeballs across the globe.


Same here, on this one. if they scored in the high 70s and 80s, I suspect it was because people wanted the old versions gone, not because the new versions were anything special. At least, that's my opinion on them: generally lackluster and derivative spells (excepting minor elementals which is a little crazy), whose main selling point is that they overwrite the busted 2014 versions. "Well, at least they don't break anything now" is not the ringing endorsement that they think it is...


I also believe this carries a greater weight than the chassis is prepared to bear adequately, that being the dev team.

People who've actually playtested the new ones found them fun. I'm not sure what to tell you.

[Blatant Beast]

People who've actually playtested the new ones found them fun. I'm not sure what to tell you.

How much playtesting is actually occurring, seems a salient question to ask.

I have given feedback on prior surveys for One D&D, and I have tested absolutely nothing in actual games.

The reason for that is simple…Playtest rules are not good fit for actual games…too disruptive, especially for something like One D&D that has multiple iterations of the same thing.

So how many people, have groups with enough time to run regular one shots or limited campaigns just for experimenting with Playtest options?

I’m sure there are some, but I suspect not that many amongst those working full time jobs.

[titi]

How much playtesting is actually occurring, seems a salient question to ask.

I have given feedback on prior surveys for One D&D, and I have tested absolutely nothing in actual games.

The reason for that is simple…Playtest rules are not good fit for actual games…too disruptive, especially for something like One D&D that has multiple iterations of the same thing.

So how many people, have groups with enough time to run regular one shots or limited campaigns just for experimenting with Playtest options?

I’m sure there are some, but I suspect not that many amongst those working full time jobs.

How do you know the playtest rules are too disruptive if you haven't tested them?

[Oramac]

For me, new mechanics aside, I'm most excited for every subclass getting art this time around. And if that Dwarf Fighter art is any indication the new PHB is going to look amazing.

This is true. And maaaaaaaay be enough for me to buy a 2024 PHB even if the disgusting Paladin's Smite goes to print. We shall see.

[Psyren]

How much playtesting is actually occurring, seems a salient question to ask.

I have given feedback on prior surveys for One D&D, and I have tested absolutely nothing in actual games.

The reason for that is simple…Playtest rules are not good fit for actual games…too disruptive, especially for something like One D&D that has multiple iterations of the same thing.

So how many people, have groups with enough time to run regular one shots or limited campaigns just for experimenting with Playtest options?

I’m sure there are some, but I suspect not that many amongst those working full time jobs.

I'm not so sure it matters. Is there a magic number of playtests that would make the results valid vs invalid?

Bottom line is that (a) the new spells cleared the favorability threshold, and (b) the old ones aren't going anywhere, the old PHB will still exist.

[ZRN]

How much playtesting is actually occurring, seems a salient question to ask.

I have given feedback on prior surveys for One D&D, and I have tested absolutely nothing in actual games.

The reason for that is simple…Playtest rules are not good fit for actual games…too disruptive, especially for something like One D&D that has multiple iterations of the same thing.

So how many people, have groups with enough time to run regular one shots or limited campaigns just for experimenting with Playtest options?

I’m sure there are some, but I suspect not that many amongst those working full time jobs.

On the one hand, with classes like the monk that got a bunch of interrelated changes, I think hands-on playtesting is important for accurate feedback. But for the specific type of feedback they're looking for - granular feedback on individual abilities/rules - I don't think that's necessary. Like, is the new barbarian "good" at high levels? That'll take some playtesting to figure out. Do I like Brutal Strikes? That I can answer just from reading the rules.

[Envyus]

This is true. And maaaaaaaay be enough for me to buy a 2024 PHB even if the disgusting Paladin's Smite goes to print. We shall see.

Why is Smite being a spell so ruining for you. Like it’s such a minor detail for me.

[Psyren]

I can honestly understand the dislike for Smite needing a BA now. 1/turn Smite I was okay with, but the action cost also axed Reaction Smites and I feel that was a bridge too far, much like getting rid of Reaction Sneak Attack was. It might be too late for them to rethink now though.

I do like the fact that most paladins won't be bothering with Polearm Master now though.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can honestly understand the dislike for Smite needing a BA now. 1/turn Smite I was okay with, but the action cost also axed Reaction Smites and I feel that was a bridge too far, much like getting rid of Reaction Sneak Attack was. It might be too late for them to rethink now though. They didn't screw casters like that.1

I do like the fact that most paladins won't be bothering with Polearm Master now though. Likely outcome.

Nice job, WotC, removing options for no good reason. :smallyuk:

1 OK, they did screw anyone who likes conjure animals.

[animorte]

As That wouldn't have happened; the only real way to justify all the design time this took was to coincide the release with all the free publicity accompanying D&D's 50th anniversary. For example, there might even be a Google Doodle planned for it like there was for Doctor Who's 50th, which will get a massive number of free eyeballs across the globe.
Yeah, that's the point. It feels like you can see that big 5-0 coming like a mile away. Start a year early. The anniversary will bring the views. I'm certainly here for it.


People who've actually playtested the new ones found them fun. I'm not sure what to tell you.
Oh, yeah I did too. I recall very early on you and I going to bat for some of their decisions while being called WotC fanbois.

But the reverting back instead of finding a middle ground kind of seemed lazy. We appreciate the changes and improvements but still have realistic expectations, lol.

[Psyren]

Yeah, that's the point. It feels like you can see that big 5-0 coming like a mile away. Start a year early. The anniversary will bring the views. I'm certainly here for it.

They started in 2020 with the PHB survey.
Granted, they lost several months due to the OGL, so.


Oh, yeah I did too. I recall very early on you and I going to bat for some of their decisions while being called WotC fanbois.

But the reverting back instead of finding a middle ground kind of seemed lazy. We appreciate the changes and improvements but still have realistic expectations, lol.

I wouldn't have minded some bigger swings - but honestly? They can always add the stuff I wanted like wild shape templates and Warlock spellcasting and Wizard spell hacking as optional class features later; say in a Tasha 2.0-style book. And Ardling can come later too. None of that needs to be core as long as it's first-party.

(I'll just plan not to play a lot of Moon Druid until then.)

[KorvinStarmast]

The big 5-0 already happened.
The original game booklet first run was out in, IIRC, January of 1974.
Need to check, but Men and Magic has a sign off by EGG in Dec 1973. If I recall Peterson's time lines, EGG and Don Kaye were getting all of the materials to the printer at the end of Dec 1973.

I had some notes from an old Shannon Applecline bit, but can't seem to find it...it had release dates in it.

[Blatant Beast]

How do you know the playtest rules are too disruptive if you haven't tested them?

Experience and self awareness about one’s own game. One does not need to see a Twilight Cleric in play, to know that as a subclass it is very strong: the subclass has great action economy, great 1st level power (sharable Darkvision), Heavy Armor and Martial Weapon proficiency , an Excellent Channel Divinity, A Bubble of Flight, and awesome Domain spells.

Note, I am not saying playtesting is bad, I am merely pointing out that a lot of the feedback is from people eyeballing the material, because they are not running ‘Test Kitchen’ campaigns.


On the one hand, with classes like the monk that got a bunch of interrelated changes, I think hands-on playtesting is important for accurate feedback. But for the specific type of feedback they're looking for - granular feedback on individual abilities/rules - I don't think that's necessary. Like, is the new barbarian "good" at high levels? That'll take some playtesting to figure out. Do I like Brutal Strikes? That I can answer just from reading the rules.

I agree with this.

[P. G. Macer]

Why is Smite being a spell so ruining for you. Like it’s such a minor detail for me.

I’m not Oramac, but to build on what Psyren said, making Smite a BA spell also means that you can’t Smite in an antimagic field, your smites can be counterspelled (big deal on a critical hit), the Barbarian/Paladin multi class becomes far less viable because you cannot smite while Raging, you can no longer smite certain über-powerful fiends like the Rakshasa or the non-Fizban’s Tiamat because they’re immune to such low-level spells, and more. Each of these nerfs on their own is minor, but they accumulate to be not just a major nerf in terms of power, but also making the class fantasy feel less paladin-y. And honestly, if I were to nerf a single feature of the 2014 paladin to better balance it, my choice would be Aura of Protection, not Divine Smite, but WotC seems to be leaving the single best defensive class feature in the game untouched.

[Merlecory]

I’m not Oramac, but to build on what Psyren said, making Smite a BA spell also means that you can’t Smite in an antimagic field, your smites can be counterspelled (big deal on a critical hit), the Barbarian/Paladin multi class becomes far less viable because you cannot smite while Raging, you can no longer smite certain über-powerful fiends like the Rakshasa or the non-Fizban’s Tiamat because they’re immune to such low-level spells, and more. Each of these nerfs on their own is minor, but they accumulate to be not just a major nerf in terms of power, but also making the class fantasy feel less paladin-y. And honestly, if I were to nerf a single feature of the 2014 paladin to better balance it, my choice would be Aura of Protection, not Divine Smite, but WotC seems to be leaving the single best defensive class feature in the game untouched.

I would mirror the sentiment about less paladin-y smites. I wouldn't personally nerf AoP, unless they actually had plans to make saves less of a pain point at higher levels.

[Psyren]

Experience and self awareness about one’s own game. One does not need to see a Twilight Cleric in play, to know that as a subclass it is very strong: the subclass has great action economy, great 1st level power (sharable Darkvision), Heavy Armor and Martial Weapon proficiency , an Excellent Channel Divinity, A Bubble of Flight, and awesome Domain spells.

Note, I am not saying playtesting is bad, I am merely pointing out that a lot of the feedback is from people eyeballing the material, because they are not running ‘Test Kitchen’ campaigns.

As you yourself said though, eyeballing and reading are effective - so the number of "true playtests", even ones that are recorded or otherwise provable, matters a lot less than you imply.


The big 5-0 already happened.
The original game booklet first run was out in, IIRC, January of 1974.

I don't disagree, but the big stuff will likely coincide with GenCon, Dragoncon, PAX etc later in the year regardless.


I’m not Oramac, but to build on what Psyren said, making Smite a BA spell also means that you can’t Smite in an antimagic field, your smites can be counterspelled (big deal on a critical hit), the Barbarian/Paladin multi class becomes far less viable because you cannot smite while Raging, you can no longer smite certain über-powerful fiends like the Rakshasa or the non-Fizban’s Tiamat because they’re immune to such low-level spells, and more. Each of these nerfs on their own is minor, but they accumulate to be not just a major nerf in terms of power, but also making the class fantasy feel less paladin-y. And honestly, if I were to nerf a single feature of the 2014 paladin to better balance it, my choice would be Aura of Protection, not Divine Smite, but WotC seems to be leaving the single best defensive class feature in the game untouched.

To be fair, you couldn't smite in an AMF in 2014 either. Sage Advice:



Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:


Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?


If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

Furthermore - I'd much rather an enemy burn their counterspell and reaction on preventing a Smite than on anything the casters are doing. Especially since the new counterspell means you don't even waste the resources now.

[Kane0]

Just one more of those little 'everything is a spell' effects that slowly stack up. I would have rather Smites being a channel divinity power (starting at level 2) that doesnt eat an action rather than a spell slot power thag does.

[titi]

Furthermore - I'd much rather an enemy burn their counterspell and reaction on preventing a Smite than on anything the casters are doing. Especially since the new counterspell means you don't even waste the resources now.

And it's a con save now, something you're either alright in (below level 6) or really good at (your aura).

[Psyren]

Regarding Paladin - I think people are a bit too focused on the basic Divine Smite. Yeah sure, DS lost some functionality with the action cost and being a spell now, but with the buffs to all the other smite spells I have to wonder if I'd bother even using DS; I love all the rest of them way more than I used to now. (Except Banishing Smite, not sure what they were thinking with all the restrictions they piled onto that one, I'm hoping it's an error.)

They all got some common buffs - being always prepared, becoming cast-on-hit instead of cast-before-hit, and working with thrown weapons (well, a couple of the old smites worked at range before too) and unarmed strikes now. On top of all those, each one got individual buffs too:

Searing Smite: No more concentration! Also, both the initial and ongoing damage upcast now, the ongoing damage can't be put out with an action from the target or one of their allies anymore, and the ongoing damage triggers before the save - so you're guaranteed at least one instance of each, for a minimum of +2d6 with a 1st-level slot, possibly even 3d6 or 4d6, and it upcasts super well also. A 3rd-level slot for example is minimum +6d6 even if they save, and if it they don't you're looking at +9d6 or more. It's still a Con save so getting the additional damage is unlikely, but it's still a decent chunk of damage even if they save.

Thunderous Smite: No more concentration as well - and an upcast was added. It doesn't scale quite as well as Searing, but all of the damage is no-save, and the saving throw vs push and prone is Str which is pretty nice.

Wrathful Smite: Concentration removed and upcast added. This one is a bit weaker in that there are multiple saving throws instead of just one, but the frighten effect also can't be removed with an action anymore, so I think it's actually a wash. Damage changed from Psychic to Necrotic now so Paladins have an extra smite damage option.

Branding Glimmering Shining Smite: This one kept concentration but it's good even with that, by applying full Faerie Fire to the target now - not just the invisibility removal and glow effect, but also makes it so you and all your allies get Advantage on all your attacks for as long as you maintain concentration. No save! The upcast option stays the same.

Blinding Smite: No concentration anymore and a damage upcast was added - but the massive benefit to this one is that it's no-save blind, at least initially. (The target gets a save at the end of each of their turns, but the playtest seems to have forgotten to include which one, I'm guessing Con.)

Staggering Smite: This one was downright awful in 2014; concentration and a Wis save for a single round of disadvantage and no reactions and then the spell ends. Now it's pretty good - no concentration and inflicts the Stun condition, which is just strictly better (still denies reactions, denies actions/attacks completely instead of disadvantage, breaks concentration...) and has an upcast option now.

Banishing Smite: As mentioned, this is the one that needs the most work now. But I'm not going to run into it in most games anyway, so.

Banishing Smite aside, all the rest are just better, and we don't even have to spend preparations on them - so I think overall, Paladins are actually better off than they were. I'm actually excited to make a paladin under the new rules.


And it's a con save now, something you're either alright in (below level 6) or really good at (your aura).

That too. Come at me, counterspeller - waste your reaction on top of everything else :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't disagree, but the big stuff will likely coincide with GenCon, Dragoncon, PAX etc later in the year regardless.
Yep.

Furthermore - I'd much rather an enemy burn their counterspell and reaction on preventing a Smite than on anything the casters are doing. Especially since the new counterspell means you don't even waste the resources now. Yeah, that's a heck of a nerf to counterspell, and I don't care for it.

Just one more of those little 'everything is a spell' effects that slowly stack up. I would have rather Smites being a channel divinity power (starting at level 2) that doesnt eat an action rather than a spell slot power thag does. You get PB smites per short rest and PBd8 radiant (or necrotic?) damage on each divine smite if you hit.
That's my initial take, not sure if that's a bit over the top, but it's a start. Fine to restrict it to one smite per turn in this case.

[titi]

Yeah, that's a heck of a nerf to counterspell, and I don't care for it.

I actually think it's a really good nerf because it makes counterspell a much more acceptable spell for npcs

[Psyren]

You get PB smites per short rest and PBd8 radiant (or necrotic?) damage on each divine smite if you hit.
That's my initial take, not sure if that's a bit over the top, but it's a start. Fine to restrict it to one smite per turn in this case.

Even at 1 smite/round (much less 1/turn) I'd say that's too strong. At level 5, you'd have 3x 3d8 smites per SR (meaning 6x 3d8 if you just get a single SR and 9x if you get two), while the UA6 paladin would have 2x 3d8 + 4x 2d8 smites per LR, and that's assuming they smite with every slot they have.


I actually think it's a really good nerf because it makes counterspell a much more acceptable spell for npcs

I think it's better for everyone. Both sides can cast their high-level spells without massively anticlimactic results, but Counterspell still maintains its role as being the emergency button to end all emergency buttons in such cases.


Just one more of those little 'everything is a spell' effects that slowly stack up. I would have rather Smites being a channel divinity power (starting at level 2) that doesnt eat an action rather than a spell slot power thag does.

I definitely don't want to tie smite to CD either, it's the opposite problem. That makes it compete with the Oath CD powers, with the way the current Paladin is set up we wouldn't be able to smite until at least 3rd level, and we'd be stuck with 2 smites for 7 levels after that recovering only 1 on a SR.

Powering it with spell slots is the easiest way to balance it from both a power and ammunition standpoint imo.

[Kane0]

Yeah sure, DS lost some functionality with the action cost and being a spell now, but with the buffs to all the other smite spells-



You get PB smites per short rest and PBd8 radiant (or necrotic?) damage on each divine smite if you hit.

Both of these hit some snags with multiclassing, if that bothers you.

[Psyren]

Both of these hit some snags with multiclassing, if that bothers you.

I'm not seeing the issue personally. Most Paladin multiclasses will be Pal 2 (DS/SeS/TS), Pal 6 (EA, Subclass, Aura, ShS) or Pal 7 (Subclass 2, extra slot) ... maaaaybe Pal 9 for Abjure Foes, BS and 3rd-level spells. I think what you gain from those breakpoints is well-balanced with what you give up personally.

[Blatant Beast]

As you yourself said though, eyeballing and reading are effective - so the number of "true playtests", even ones that are recorded or otherwise provable, matters a lot less than you imply..

You are overlooking that comparing cleric subclasses between 5e options can be eyeballed because the most important driver of cleric power, the spell list, is normalized for 5e options.

Comparing the 5e Cleric to One D&D Cleric is a devilishly difficult task, because:
1) The spell list and spells themselves have not been finalised
2) The Design Focus of the One D&D Cleric has changed, compared to the 5e Cleric.

The One D&D Cleric is moving options away from the subclass and spells, to being options included as part of the base class.

I have no idea if adding Concentration to the Spiritual Weapon spell, while at the same time building in native support for martial weapons usage and cleric smites, as One D&D does, enhances or acts a a detrimental factor to cleric power when compared to the 5e cleric.

Subtleties, like that are very difficult to grasp by “eyeballing”, one really needs to test it.

The low number of published spells, in One D&D is itself a barrier to accurate testing.

If the cleric base chassis for One D&D is enhanced, and presumably the spells of One D&D are going to be powered down, running an One D&D cleric with 5e spells, is not very accurate play testing. Obviously, the stronger One D&D chassis combined with 5e spells will out perform the 5e cleric.

[Psyren]

The One D&D Cleric is moving options away from the subclass and spells, to being options included as part of the base class.

It's not a zero-sum game though, they can add to/buff both. See Trickery and Light for example.



I have no idea if adding Concentration to the Spiritual Weapon spell, while at the same time building in native support for martial weapons usage and cleric smites, as One D&D does, enhances or acts a a detrimental factor to cleric power when compared to the 5e cleric.

Subtleties, like that are very difficult to grasp by “eyeballing”, one really needs to test it.

The smite thing was reverted since we're going back to class lists, and while I don't think Spiritual Weapon needs concentration either, I highly doubt nerfing one spell is going to materially change the cleric's power to the point that testing is needed to form a valid conclusion.

[Blatant Beast]

The smite thing was reverted since we're going back to class lists, and while I don't think Spiritual Weapon needs concentration either, I highly doubt nerfing one spell is going to materially change the cleric's power to the point that testing is needed to form a valid conclusion.

We absolutely know that more than the Spiritual Weapon spell is being altered by One D&D.

The 5e Cleric’s power rests upon careful selection of spells to fill one’s limited spell preparation slots. Clerics have no spells, (or almost none), that have a Reaction cast trigger. Clerics, do have a number of spells that require Concentration, and a smaller number of spells that can be cast as a Bonus Action.

Spiritual Weapon, fills a critical niche for a cleric. Spiritual Weapon, does not require Concentration, can be cast or used as a Bonus Action, has a decent enough rate of Upcast scaling power, and allows a cleric character to apply damage pressure during an Encounter while still being able to cast other spells or use Channel Divinity powers.

5e, in the system’s wisdom, correctly divined that a cleric only being able to heal, or buff during their turn was not particularly satisfying….hence options like Spirtual Weapon.

While Spiritual Weapon, as a spell, is not as central to the cleric class’ identity as Eldritch Blast is to a Warlock, Spiritual Weapon is definitely a Cleric Touchstone spell.

If Spiritual Weapon is being changed, then we need to know what other Bonus Action, that applies damage pressure to the enemy, and does not require Concentration is going to take Spiritual Weapon’s place, because the need still exists……at this point we don’t know.

Until we have the full cleric spell list, we will not know if, or how Spiritual Weapon’s niche was filled for One D&D.

Seems like something, WotC would want to have tested?
If you take your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic swaps out a major component of your car’s engine, typically the mechanic is going to test drive the car, before returning it to you.

[lall]

My guess is Spiritual Weapon won’t be changed. The concentration version was earlier in the playtest when they were more experimental in a nerfy sort of way.

[Psyren]

We absolutely know that more than the Spiritual Weapon spell is being altered by One D&D.

Right, but it's a mix of buffs and nerfs. Cure Wounds and Healing Word have been nearly doubled in potency for instance. But unless they alter the truly impactful staples like Bless or Spirit Guardians or Dispel Magic or Revivify, which we've gotten no indication they will, Clerics' power or usefulness are not going to materially shift.


The 5e Cleric’s power rests upon careful selection of spells to fill one’s limited spell preparation slots. Clerics have no spells, (or almost none), that have a Reaction cast trigger. Clerics, do have a number of spells that require Concentration, and a smaller number of spells that can be cast as a Bonus Action.

Spiritual Weapon, fills a critical niche for a cleric. Spiritual Weapon, does not require Concentration, can be cast or used as a Bonus Action, has a decent enough rate of Upcast scaling power, and allows a cleric character to apply damage pressure during an Encounter while still being able to cast other spells or use Channel Divinity powers.

5e, in the system’s wisdom, correctly divined that a cleric only being able to heal, or buff during their turn was not particularly satisfying….hence options like Spirtual Weapon.

While Spiritual Weapon, as a spell, is not as central to the cleric class’ identity as Eldritch Blast is to a Warlock, Spiritual Weapon is definitely a Cleric Touchstone spell.

If Spiritual Weapon is being changed, then we need to know what other Bonus Action, that applies damage pressure to the enemy, and does not require Concentration is going to take Spiritual Weapon’s place, because the need still exists……at this point we don’t know.

Until we have the full cleric spell list, we will not know if, or how Spiritual Weapon’s niche was filled for One D&D

I don't see that as a "need" for the reasons above. A cleric who is not using their bonus action to apply a small amount of damage each round... is still a cleric.

[KorvinStarmast]

Both of these hit some snags with multiclassing, if that bothers you.Good point. Cha mod times per SR might be the better idea, but that probably makes it too powerful if you don't tie it to spell slots. Will rethink. Or, CHA mod times per LR (similar to the original level 1 ability Divine Sense) with HD being tied to proficiency bonus. Higher level Paladins smite harder.

[Blatant Beast]

Psyren, it seems self evident to me, that almost all players would rather be able to cast Bless, and get in an attack from Spiritual Weapon, as opposed to just using their turn to cast Bless.

Historically, clerics tend to be the least popular class, because many people do not enjoy being relegated to ‘healbot’ status.

We could probably start an entirely separate discussion about the efficacy and wisdom of boosting the impact of the cure spells in One D&D vs other areas of design opportunity.

Healing Word is useful as an emergency heal, but a standard strategy I have seen in play, is that groups try to avoid in combat healing as much as possible, and rely upon out of combat healing through Prayer of Healing, Aura of Vitality, or Short Rests.

I can only speak for myself, but many of the design focus decisions that One D&D has made I find odd.

[Psyren]

Blatant Beast - I'm not saying that a cleric who can SW swing while concentrating on Bless isn't better off than one that can't. I'm saying that I can still make valid conclusions about Cleric power without actually playing the two, and that conclusion is that the latter Cleric might be slightly less powerful but is still powerful. In my opinion, you're putting too much weight on the validity of feedback that is driven by actual playtests (which we have no way of corroborating anyway) as opposed to feedback that is driven by reading and discussion.

[stoutstien]

Psyren, it seems self evident to me, that almost all players would rather be able to cast Bless, and get in an attack from Spiritual Weapon, as opposed to just using their turn to cast Bless.

Historically, clerics tend to be the least popular class, because many people do not enjoy being relegated to ‘healbot’ status.

We could probably start an entirely separate discussion about the efficacy and wisdom of boosting the impact of the cure spells in One D&D vs other areas of design opportunity.

Healing Word is useful as an emergency heal, but a standard strategy I have seen in play, is that groups try to avoid in combat healing as much as possible, and rely upon out of combat healing through Prayer of Healing, Aura of Vitality, or Short Rests.

I can only speak for myself, but many of the design focus decisions that One D&D has made I find odd.

In my opinion the popularity of clerics has never had anything to do with their mechanics. It's always been the headache with dealing with a moral centric class attached to a naturalistic Pantheon.
It's hard to really get into a character if you're supposed to be worshiping a god of law when that God can make decisions that are both lawful and chaos at any given time even if they are "beyond" the idea of philosophical distinction on that level of understanding. Paladins fall in a similar place but hitting stuff is fun so it tends to get glossed over quicker but both hide this problem the same way by being powerful enough to disregard the problem.

[Kane0]

Good point. Cha mod times per SR might be the better idea, but that probably makes it too powerful if you don't tie it to spell slots. Will rethink. Or, CHA mod times per LR (similar to the original level 1 ability Divine Sense) with HD being tied to proficiency bonus. Higher level Paladins smite harder.

I should probably have clarified, if my idea for smites to be a function of channels were to be implemented then there would be other changes to go along with that. Smite spells removed entirely, two channels per short rest with a third in tier 3 or so, base damage scales with prof bonus and your choice of oath adds a rider to your smites. Then maybe change lay on hands to be the other base function of your channel, with oath again adding various riders.

Then the half casting can be more focused towards supplemental buffs and healing with the occasional offensive spell. Oath would probably play a large part in that.

[Schwann145]

Cleric has a long-standing tradition of "always prepare Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians," because their spell list can be described as "very-important-but-also-quite-boring-and-for-whatever-reason-the-devs-absolutely-refuse-to-flesh-out-domain/deity-specific-spell-support-outside-of-a-small-handful-of-"on-theme"-spells-which-leaves-all-Clerics-feelings-like-copies-of-one-another-despite-having-wildly-different-faiths."

tl;dr - The class needs an overhaul to make the mechanics match the theme, and that overhaul is never coming.
So, even a small nerf to a spell like Spiritual Weapon can have drastic impact on the popularity/playability of the class.

[titi]

I should probably have clarified, if my idea for smites to be a function of channels were to be implemented then there would be other changes to go along with that. Smite spells removed entirely, two channels per short rest with a third in tier 3 or so, base damage scales with prof bonus and your choice of oath adds a rider to your smites. Then maybe change lay on hands to be the other base function of your channel, with oath again adding various riders.

Then the half casting can be more focused towards supplemental buffs and healing with the occasional offensive spell. Oath would probably play a large part in that.

I feel like if you channel divinity has the option between healing and dealing damage, then dealing damage is going to be the vastly superior option almost everytime a'd healing will just be the trap option

[KorvinStarmast]

Cleric has a long-standing tradition of "always prepare Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians," because their spell list can be described as "very-important-but-also-quite-boring-and-for-whatever-reason-the-devs-absolutely-refuse-to-flesh-out-domain/deity-specific-spell-support-outside-of-a-small-handful-of-"on-theme"-spells-which-leaves-all-Clerics-feelings-like-copies-of-one-another-despite-having-wildly-different-faiths." Not sure where you got this idea, outside of the internet echo chamber. In the games I have played, Spirit Guardian is rarely used by clerics. Spiritual weapon is much more common at our tables.

So, even a small nerf to a spell like Spiritual Weapon can have drastic impact on the popularity/playability of the class. There was nothing in Spiritual Weapon that needed to be changed or fixed. That's part of the "tinker because we can, not because we have a competent idea" that's been going on.

As but one example: If you have six encounters per day, and you use Spirit Guardian and Spiritual weapon in each combat, you run out of spell slots faster than you run out of encounters. (Unless you up cast and thus disable powerful spells like Banishment or Greater Restoration ...)

At level six, how many first level slots does a cleric have, and how many second?
People complaining about that combo must be presuming a 5 minute work day.

As to Smite:

I like the BA smite spells and concentration being removed. But a generic smite with no rider stil appeals to me. Kane has pointed out that the PB idea gets tangly with multiclassing, so I'll go back to Con Mod.

Con mod D8s per smite, and "Con mod +1" times per long rest like Divine Sense was. Thise creates a choice/opportunity cost for boosting generic smite damage.
Add a d8 against fiends and undead.
And one smite per turn. (But if you get an OA, a smite is available if there are any left.

[Jakinbandw]

Not sure where you got this idea, outside of the internet echo chamber. In the games I have played, Spirit Guardian is rarely used by clerics. Spiritual weapon is much more common at our tables.
There was nothing in Spiritual Weapon that needed to be changed or fixed. That's part of the "tinker because we can, not because we have a competent idea" that's been going on.

As but one example: If you have six encounters per day, and you use Spirit Guardian and Spiritual weapon in each combat, you run out of spell slots faster than you run out of encounters. (Unless you up cast and thus disable powerful spells like Banishment or Greater Restoration ...)

At level six, how many first level slots does a cleric have, and how many second?
People complaining about that combo must be presuming a 5 minute work day.

Clerics have 4 first level, 3 second level, and 3 third level.

Thing is that spirit guardians lasts 10 minutes, so you can clear most of a dungeon in 10 minutes (and you shouldn't be moving slower as otherwise you're giving the locals a chance to react). If time matters, then spirit guardians lasts long enough. If it doesn't, then you can long rest freely.

This means you can do that combo for 6 encounter at level 6 with a second level slot and 1-2 third level slots free for utility.

Or, if you want real cheese, a human cleric can subtle cast spirit guardians and then get invisibility and pass without trace cast on them. At level 6 this gives a result of a +20 with advantage to sneak around and murder everyone unseen.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clerics have 4 first level, 3 second level, and 3 third level. I am aware of that. The first level spells do no good for the combo that requires level 2 and 3 spells. .

Thing is that spirit guardians lasts 10 minutes, so you can clear most of a dungeon in 10 minutes. a few objections to this blithe assertion
(1) Sixty rounds of combat in a row? Uh, no. The party will be out of HP long before that.
(2) Assuming encounters are that close in time. Sometimes, they are, sometimes they are not.
(3) Concentration. One failed con save and there goes your spell slot. Seen that happen more than once on the cleric who does like to use it.
(4) Spiritual Weapon, on the other hand, stays up without concentration. What I have seem most often with that is cantrip plus W or Dodge plus SW, depending on the battle.

If it doesn't, then you can long rest freely.
Whoa, long rest is after the 6 encounters I posited. your math failed there. You cannot assumed that you can get two for one out of each casting, nor can you assume that you will never lose concentration. I have played clerics quite a bit. l

This means you can do that combo for 6 encounter at level 6 with a second level slot and 1-2 third level slots free for utility.
SG is a 3rd level spell. SW is a 2d level spell.
No, you can't, and I pointed out why.

Your white room assumptions do not reflect actual play, but, in some 'dungeon crawl' set ups that might work out with two encounters being temporally adjacent AND the cleric not losing concentration. In that case, this can occasionally work out if the stars align.

Beyond that, each encounter varies in what the enemy does/is doing; you can't assume that a given encounter is a crowd of mooks.

On the other hand, if you wade into a bunch of zombies with SG up, yeah, it's pretty effective.

Or, if you want real cheese, a human cleric can subtle cast spirit guardians and then get invisibility and pass without trace cast on them. At level 6 this gives a result of a +20 with advantage to sneak around and murder everyone unseen. How many times have you done this in actual play?

[Waazraath]

Clerics have 4 first level, 3 second level, and 3 third level.

Thing is that spirit guardians lasts 10 minutes, so you can clear most of a dungeon in 10 minutes (and you shouldn't be moving slower as otherwise you're giving the locals a chance to react). If time matters, then spirit guardians lasts long enough. If it doesn't, then you can long rest freely.

This means you can do that combo for 6 encounter at level 6 with a second level slot and 1-2 third level slots free for utility.

Or, if you want real cheese, a human cleric can subtle cast spirit guardians and then get invisibility and pass without trace cast on them. At level 6 this gives a result of a +20 with advantage to sneak around and murder everyone unseen.

10 minutes clearing a dungeon? How does that work? In my experience the searching for traps or secret doors, social encounters (prisoner / interrogate enemy), utility spells (speak with dead, detect magic), rituals, searching for clues (read: looting the corpses), searching for treasure. And yeah, in some dungeons time is a factor, but that the only alternative is "you can long rest freely" is not my experience. Plenty of dungeons where you have corridors between rooms (so that fight does not put the entire dungeon on alert) but with regular patrols, denizens moving about to do stuff (living environment and all that) which makes short resting an option (if smartly done and if your lucky) but long resting out of the question.

[Psyren]

Clerics have 4 first level, 3 second level, and 3 third level.

Thing is that spirit guardians lasts 10 minutes, so you can clear most of a dungeon in 10 minutes (and you shouldn't be moving slower as otherwise you're giving the locals a chance to react). If time matters, then spirit guardians lasts long enough. If it doesn't, then you can long rest freely.

This means you can do that combo for 6 encounter at level 6 with a second level slot and 1-2 third level slots free for utility.

Or, if you want real cheese, a human cleric can subtle cast spirit guardians and then get invisibility and pass without trace cast on them. At level 6 this gives a result of a +20 with advantage to sneak around and murder everyone unseen.

Your games don't appear to bear any resemblance to the ones I've seen. These are some odd assumptions:

"I have more than 10 minutes, therefore I have 8 hours"
"I can murder everyone using 1 hour invisibility + 10 minute spirit guardians."
"Turning me invisible means all the spell effects emanating from me are also invisible."
"Subtle spell hides ongoing spell effects as well as their components."

If your DM is behind all of those that's fine, but I don't think most peoples' would be.

[Amechra]

Cleric has a long-standing tradition of "always prepare Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians," because their spell list can be described as "very-important-but-also-quite-boring-and-for-whatever-reason-the-devs-absolutely-refuse-to-flesh-out-domain/deity-specific-spell-support-outside-of-a-small-handful-of-"on-theme"-spells-which-leaves-all-Clerics-feelings-like-copies-of-one-another-despite-having-wildly-different-faiths."

I mean, the reason is that that would take up a bunch of page count for minimal gain. Like, we currently have a situation where Clerics getting 10 distinct spells per Domain feels like a "small handful".

That said, I'd be down for the return of stuff like 3.5's Faith Healing (a version of Cure Light Wounds that always heals the maximum... but can only target people who follow the same deity as you) or Imbued Healing (a feat that adds extra effects to your healing spells based off of your domains). I know that 5e's built off of the mechanics being a flavorless pap that is as diagesis-agnostic as possible, but come one.

[Blatant Beast]

In my opinion, you're putting too much weight on the validity of feedback that is driven by actual playtests (which we have no way of corroborating anyway) as opposed to feedback that is driven by reading and discussion.

Fair enough. My concern, is that the power in the cleric class, is a bit subtle to grok. A Paladin, plays like it reads, for the most part. The 5e Cleric class does not read as well as the Paladin class, but when you see a cleric played well, the lightbulb goes on.

In my opinion the popularity of clerics has never had anything to do with their mechanics. It's always been the headache with dealing with a moral centric class attached to a naturalistic Pantheon.

While I do not disagree with this, being able to provide both offense and utility/buffing in the same turn is a nice quality of life adjustment for the class. The 5e cleric class is fun to play, and the fact the class can be devoted to a philosophy instead of a deity does help a bit with the Role Play concerns.

Awkward mechanics, will certainly not help the class get over the hurdle of having a theme that inherently turns off many players.

[Psyren]

Fair enough. My concern, is that the power in the cleric class, is a bit subtle to grok. A Paladin, plays like it reads, for the most part. The 5e Cleric class does not read as well as the Paladin class, but when you see a cleric played well, the lightbulb goes on.

That's valid; if they simply slap concentration onto Spiritual Weapon without buffing it to compensate I'll be pretty disappointed myself. If they think it's overpowered or overused as currently printed it would be nice to hear from them as to why.



While I do not disagree with this, being able to provide both offense and utility/buffing in the same turn is a nice quality of life adjustment for the class. The 5e cleric class is fun to play, and the fact the class can be devoted to a philosophy instead of a deity does help a bit with the Role Play concerns.

Awkward mechanics, will certainly not help the class get over the hurdle of having a theme that inherently turns off many players.

Is that really a hurdle though? Their class popularity stats (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure) show Clerics dead center, with only Wizards and Warlocks ahead of them as full casters, i.e. ahead of Sorcerers, Bards and Druids. They seem to be doing fine imo.

[ZRN]

We absolutely know that more than the Spiritual Weapon spell is being altered by One D&D.

The 5e Cleric’s power rests upon careful selection of spells to fill one’s limited spell preparation slots. Clerics have no spells, (or almost none), that have a Reaction cast trigger. Clerics, do have a number of spells that require Concentration, and a smaller number of spells that can be cast as a Bonus Action.

Spiritual Weapon, fills a critical niche for a cleric. Spiritual Weapon, does not require Concentration, can be cast or used as a Bonus Action, has a decent enough rate of Upcast scaling power, and allows a cleric character to apply damage pressure during an Encounter while still being able to cast other spells or use Channel Divinity powers.

5e, in the system’s wisdom, correctly divined that a cleric only being able to heal, or buff during their turn was not particularly satisfying….hence options like Spirtual Weapon.

While Spiritual Weapon, as a spell, is not as central to the cleric class’ identity as Eldritch Blast is to a Warlock, Spiritual Weapon is definitely a Cleric Touchstone spell.

If Spiritual Weapon is being changed, then we need to know what other Bonus Action, that applies damage pressure to the enemy, and does not require Concentration is going to take Spiritual Weapon’s place, because the need still exists……at this point we don’t know.

Until we have the full cleric spell list, we will not know if, or how Spiritual Weapon’s niche was filled for One D&D.

Seems like something, WotC would want to have tested?
If you take your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic swaps out a major component of your car’s engine, typically the mechanic is going to test drive the car, before returning it to you.

I think that you're making the wrong assumptions about the point of the playtest.

They're not expected the community to tell them whether the classes overall are balanced (except to the degree that imbalance makes them unfun to play, like the first-draft rogue and monk). They're either confident they can do that work themselves or (justifiably) dubious that they'd get useful information from a public playtest. The point of the playtest is an overall vibe-check and feedback on specific abilities.

[Blatant Beast]

T
Is that really a hurdle though?

Bad Mechanics are certainly a hurdle...just see the 2e AD&D Psionicist and 3e's Truenamer. Both are cool concepts, that do not work. Clearly, the 5e or One D&D cleric does not rise to the level of either of the previously mentioned classes.


The point of the playtest is an overall vibe-check and feedback on specific abilities.

That is actually the source of my trepidation. The playtest has several times now, presented in one fell swoop a bunch of spells, with changes compared to the 5e version.

As I stated previously, the cleric class is a bit subtle to gauge, because so much depends upon a red wheel barrow, siting in the rain.....err...correction...so much depends upon Action Economy/Concentration requirements of the cleric spell list.

Vibe Checking is also restrained by the constraints of 5e. A Barbarian's Rage, is a horrible vibe. Spellcasters can nurse their spellslots, but Barbarians are designed to Rage, and if a Barbarian is out of Rages, the system just sort of tells them to suck it up and carry on.

As a vibe that sucks, and most people acknowledge that bit of suckitude...but everyone knows the Barbarian class is only going to receive band aids, because WotC is not going to completely redesign the class for 2024.

[Inquisitor]

I can't believe the amount of hubub over a spell (Spiritual Weapon) that's pretty poor in most circumstances. Certainly it didn't need a nerf, but maybe that's a good thing since it will save a lot of people who fall into the trap of wasting their limited spell slots trying to cast it all the time.

(There are plenty of comprehensive analyses on the net about how poor this spell is outside of a few niche cases like Death Cleric, so I'm not going to bother repeating all of that here.)

[Psyren]

Bad Mechanics are certainly a hurdle...just see the 2e AD&D Psionicist and 3e's Truenamer. Both are cool concepts, that do not work. Clearly, the 5e or One D&D cleric does not rise to the level of either of the previously mentioned classes.

I agree Cleric is nowhere near those two but then... why mention them at all? The only 5e classes that would have fallen into this bucket imo were the 2014 Ranger and Monk, both of which have since been fixed. Cleric remains fine, including in terms of usage statistics.




That is actually the source of my trepidation. The playtest has several times now, presented in one fell swoop a bunch of spells, with changes compared to the 5e version.

As I stated previously, the cleric class is a bit subtle to gauge, because so much depends upon a red wheel barrow, siting in the rain.....err...correction...so much depends upon Action Economy/Concentration requirements of the cleric spell list.

Vibe Checking is also restrained by the constraints of 5e. A Barbarian's Rage, is a horrible vibe. Spellcasters can nurse their spellslots, but Barbarians are designed to Rage, and if a Barbarian is out of Rages, the system just sort of tells them to suck it up and carry on.

As a vibe that sucks, and most people acknowledge that bit of suckitude...but everyone knows the Barbarian class is only going to receive band aids, because WotC is not going to completely redesign the class for 2024.

I would call the Barbarian changes sweeping enough to be a redesign. Recovering rage on a short rest, having it last 10x as long, and making it much easier to maintain, imo all lead to a Barbarian actually running out of rages becoming much rarer.

[stoutstien]

I agree Cleric is nowhere near those two but then... why mention them at all? The only 5e classes that would have fallen into this bucket imo were the 2014 Ranger and Monk, both of which have since been fixed. Cleric remains fine, including in terms of usage statistics.


I think it's important because (hopefully) the vast majority of players aren't ranking classes that want to play based on a pile of mechanics, such as ranking full casters solely based on that similarly. That's why ranking all the classes in popularity across the board is mostly a pointless metric. It doesn't matter if only 5% want to ever play a bard like PC as long as that same 5% feels like there are enough options to do just that.

Players who want to play clerics are probably looking at having specific hooks and RP opportunities as much as having the crunch to fulfill those troupes and traits. If the only thing a class that as ingrained into the very driving forces that are the big makers and shakers of a setting is
"well it's strong"
I would chalk that as a huge failure even if it was the most popular class by leaps and bounds. Clerics feel extremely mushy in 5e because the lore in DND has always been that way but it's been cracked up to 100 this time around.

[Psyren]

I think it's important because (hopefully) the vast majority of players aren't ranking classes that want to play based on a pile of mechanics, such as ranking full casters solely based on that similarly. That's why ranking all the classes in popularity across the board is mostly a pointless metric. It doesn't matter if only 5% want to ever play a bard like PC as long as that same 5% feels like there are enough options to do just that.

I cited the popularity metrics because the assertion being made was that a significant number of players are being "turned off" from playing Cleric due to their design. That doesn't appear to be the case from the numbers. This isn't to say that clerics are in any way perfect, but I would expect mechanical barriers to their adoption to be reflected in usage, much as they were with Crawford's comments on the Druid and its complexity.

[stoutstien]

I cited the popularity metrics because the assertion being made was that a significant number of players are being "turned off" from playing Cleric due to their design. That doesn't appear to be the case from the numbers. This isn't to say that clerics are in any way perfect, but I would expect mechanical barriers to their adoption to be reflected in usage, much as they were with Crawford's comments on the Druid and its complexity.

Now that would be an interesting metric to see now that you mention it. I know I would play a cleric in a game where the the GM has taken the time to clean up the back end of it but shy away from them otherwise. Same reason I wouldn't play a 5e wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough. My concern, is that the power in the cleric class, is a bit subtle to grok. A Paladin, plays like it reads, for the most part. The 5e Cleric class does not read as well as the Paladin class, but when you see a cleric played well, the lightbulb goes on. Yes, that's well said.


I can't believe the amount of hubub over a spell (Spiritual Weapon) that's pretty poor in most circumstances. Certainly it didn't need a nerf, but maybe that's a good thing since it will save a lot of people who fall into the trap of wasting their limited spell slots trying to cast it all the time. It has its moments, but it's not an Easy Button.

[Blatant Beast]

I can't believe the amount of hubub over a spell (Spiritual Weapon) that's pretty poor in most circumstances.

That is Pack Tactics talk, where they include a severe, click bait statement about something, and then spend the video walking back their title.

https://youtu.be/tGks79yE5Bw?si=sWCBpB9jP__EoBeN

The link below is a screen grab from the PT video on Spiritual Weapon.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1100874982961188864/1205245291046113301/image.png?ex=65d7ab25&is=65c53625&hm=8ec9d38233a21824d08b07afac3175f85787359bb926f2f fe5f82b726d0babbb&

For those that do not want to click it: the conclusion PT makes about Spiritual Weapon: “finally, it (Spiritual Weapon), does have something going for it”.

So even Spirtual Weapon’s detractors, still think the spell has “something going for it”.

SW is a C level spell…it does what you expect it to, and it can be useful…like the emergency blanket and flares I keep in my car.

I would not classify a car kept emergency blanket or flares as overrated, merely because I do not need to use them everyday, or because they are not applicable to every situation.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't exactly equate Spiritual Weapon to flares and an emergency blanket either, though. That analogy seems more like the province of something like Revivify; I don't need it every day, but I keep it prepared because when I do, I really do.

[Inquisitor]

That is Pack Tactics talk, where they include a severe, click bait statement about something, and then spend the video walking back their title.



For those that do not want to click it: the conclusion PT makes about Spiritual Weapon: “finally, it (Spiritual Weapon), does have something going for it”.

So even Spirtual Weapon’s detractors, still think the spell has “something going for it”.

SW is a C level spell…it does what you expect it to, and it can be useful…like the emergency blanket and flares I keep in my car.

I would not classify a car kept emergency blanket or flares as overrated, merely because I do not need to use them everyday, or because they are not applicable to every situation.

Are we disagreeing? I'm not sure. I said it was pretty poor in most circumstances. You describe it as a C level spell that can be useful, which I agree with. I don't think we're that far off.

The only bit I'd disagree with is that it 'does what you expect it to do'. I think the issues with this spell: that you're likely firing it up on round 2, that it's slow (didn't realize how many rounds were spent unable to attack until our group tried this on a map), and that Cleric's do have (even pre-Telekinetic) other BA options that are more impactful, particularly Healing Word, result in this spell not actually doing what people expect. Proponents of this spell often speak of reliable use of a BA. Given that you rate it a C, you're clearly aware that it's not in most circumstances, and that in many fights you'd be lucky to get 2 hits out of the thing. I think a lot of players 'expect' way more out of this spell than it usually delivers and use it way too much.

That said, it's pretty bizarre that this was a target for the nerf hammer.

[Schwann145]

The thing to remember, though, is that (generally speaking) Clerics lack offensive options that pack a punch.
So while, in the grand scheme of all things D&D, Spiritual Weapon isn't that impressive on it's own, when you look at it through the lens of a Cleric, who is likely struggling to feel relevant in combat compared to the warrior types and arcane casters, it becomes very good.

Is Healing Word a better use of a Bonus Action? Generally speaking, yes, almost always. But waiting around for someone to need a Healing Word is far less engaging (ie: fun) than actively participating in the action, which Spiritual Weapon lets you do.

[Blatant Beast]

Are we disagreeing? I'm not sure. I said it was pretty poor in most circumstances. You describe it as a C level spell that can be useful, which I agree with. I don't think we're that far off.

Agreed.

The larger issue, I think is the criteria of judgement.

A Spiritual Weapon that slays a foe that has Legendary Actions, before said foe can finish off a comrade, strikes me as being of similar value as a Bonus Action used to cast Healing Word for Yo-Yo healing.

Even the Telekinetic Feat on a cleric, is often overrated, in people’s opinions as the feat is presented as a “I win button”. The feat is great, but to garner the full value of the Telekinetic feat requires setup, and the Telekinetic feat, becomes a bit less useful as one advances in level due to Legendary Resistance and high saving throws.

[Inquisitor]

Agreed.

The larger issue, I think is the criteria of judgement.

A Spiritual Weapon that slays a foe that has Legendary Actions, before said foe can finish off a comrade, strikes me as being of similar value as a Bonus Action used to cast Healing Word for Yo-Yo healing.

Even the Telekinetic Feat on a cleric, is often overrated, in people’s opinions as the feat is presented as a “I win button”. The feat is great, but to garner the full value of the Telekinetic feat requires setup, and the Telekinetic feat, becomes a bit less useful as one advances in level due to Legendary Resistance and high saving throws.

For sure, if the SW can finish off (any) foe before it attacks then the value goes up, though this gets into a bit of white room debate and sometimes assumes the characters (players) know more than they do. My experience with this spell would suggest it's less likely to be able to target a foe that players think is ready to drop anyway; the poor movement means the SW is often stuck attacking whatever it can reach.

I do think this was one of the strange things about PT's vid on the subject though. I'f I'm remembering correctly he use a model with one big enemy and claimed that was the best case. To me it would make more sense that the best case was small foes so that the extra bits of damage you're going to do with SW might actually prevent attacks during the battle.

I think Schwann's point about 'feeling relevant' is telling. People want to feel like active participants, and filling up their Bonus Action to be busy, even if later on in the day they run short on spells that might be more impactful does that.