Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[KorvinStarmast]

So you were complaining about stuff you haven’t read. Not a great look.

That fact that they did it in the first place was an unnecessary **** up. I have a UA that I have not bothered to open because they have already demonstrated some serious conceptual problems to include the inane druid wild shape grunge. After providing my time and effort in offering constructive criticism from the first UA, and seeing WotC'Bro's response, at some point my time isn't worth wasting on their flailing around. I bill out at a hell of a lot higher than 0 dollars per hour for people who listen to what I offer. For those that can't be bothered to listen, at some point I have to decide that my time will not be wasted on you. That point has been passed.

[paladinn]

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

I don't think the first subclass level should be a hard-and-fast. For martial characters it's not bad to get some "basic" features under one's belt before specializing. For clerics, everything about their abilities comes from their relationship with a deity, so the domain should kick in at L1. Back when wizards had to choose opposing schools (not a bad thing), it would be hard to let them grab a couple levels with spells of said school and then to have to give them up.

Just like life as you age: everything Depends.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think the first subclass level should be a hard-and-fast. For martial characters it's not bad to get some "basic" features under one's belt before specializing. For clerics, everything about their abilities comes from their relationship with a deity, so the domain should kick in at L1. Back when wizards had to choose opposing schools (not a bad thing), it would be hard to let them grab a couple levels with spells of said school and then to have to give them up.

Just like life as you age: everything Depends.

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

As I see it, the base 5e classes break down as follows, working from thematic grounds only. Most of this matches the PHB, only paladins really differ. I could see an argument that everyone should be either 1 or 3, without the odd-ball druid/wizard "subclass at level 2" thing.

Artificers specialize.

Barbarians could go either way--I like the idea that their Path is how they unlock their preternatural power--the Berserker focuses on the emotion of rage itself, the totem barbarian channels the ideals/connection to the symbols of the totems, etc.

Bards specialize.

Clerics are defined by their relationship to their deity. Definitely Source.

Druids specialize (differentiating them from clerics)--they draw on nature, but how they do is very different between circles.

Fighters specialize.

Monks specialize--there are common threads and the core idea of inner focus is the real source, while the tradition is about techniques.

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Rangers specialize, as a hybrid of fighters and druids.

Sorcerers are Sourced. Very obviously. Without their Origin, they don't have power at all.

Warlocks, the same. Without their Pact, they're just ordinary scholars (at best). It's the most common theme--they couldn't do power the "proper" way, so they cheated.

Wizards, obviously, are specialized.

[J-H]

Not me. I've checked out of following the UAs aside from occasionally seeing what's going on via forum threads. They've taken a wrong turn on design. I'm usually the DM, so nobody I'm playing with is likely to switch either. My houserules fix most of what I view as problems with 5e, and I'm content with that.

[JackPhoenix]

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

* Smite
* Lay on Hands
* 1/3 Divine Spellcasting
* Auras at higher levels

The exact spells and aura they get change depending on the oath. Could have specific riders based on their oaths on their smites too.

[Kane0]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

There are plenty of base classes that work as a subclass, these are mostly the hybrid classes though.

I mean, D&D doesn't seem to want a lot of specific classes and this would cut down on a lot of classes. If they did something like this I would be somewhat intrigued in looking at 5.5 again.

[paladinn]

Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

I think I have :)

[Kane0]

I think I have :)

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

[Psyren]

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

Their spellcasting got bumped down to first level to compensate though. I'd much rather have Bless, Shield of Faith, and even Detect Magic at level 1 than a fighting style, especially since they don't even get the best one (Archery).

[Keltest]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

And thats only because fighters already get fighter as a subclass.

[paladinn]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

Yeah but we had a lot of fun doing the ranger fighter subclass :)

[Sorinth]

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

As I see it, the base 5e classes break down as follows, working from thematic grounds only. Most of this matches the PHB, only paladins really differ. I could see an argument that everyone should be either 1 or 3, without the odd-ball druid/wizard "subclass at level 2" thing.

Artificers specialize.

Barbarians could go either way--I like the idea that their Path is how they unlock their preternatural power--the Berserker focuses on the emotion of rage itself, the totem barbarian channels the ideals/connection to the symbols of the totems, etc.

Bards specialize.

Clerics are defined by their relationship to their deity. Definitely Source.

Druids specialize (differentiating them from clerics)--they draw on nature, but how they do is very different between circles.

Fighters specialize.

Monks specialize--there are common threads and the core idea of inner focus is the real source, while the tradition is about techniques.

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Rangers specialize, as a hybrid of fighters and druids.

Sorcerers are Sourced. Very obviously. Without their Origin, they don't have power at all.

Warlocks, the same. Without their Pact, they're just ordinary scholars (at best). It's the most common theme--they couldn't do power the "proper" way, so they cheated.

Wizards, obviously, are specialized.

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

Warlocks are similar since you can also easily change the subclass from who they serve to how they serve. Sorcerers and Paladins I find harder to come up with good ways to move the subclass from source to specialize but probably could be done.

[Psyren]

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations?

And in fact, I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3.

[Rukelnikov]

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

Warlocks are similar since you can also easily change the subclass from who they serve to how they serve. Sorcerers and Paladins I find harder to come up with good ways to move the subclass from source to specialize but probably could be done.

But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.

[Sindal]

As a dm (when I actually start dming again)

Absolutely. I've seen enough changes I'm more than on board with to update my 'patch notes'.

As a player, I hope to get into games with OneDND rules as I'd like to try out the changes myself. From what we've seen so far and the playtestings that has happened, it's inspired some new character ideas I never thought of before. For thr first time ever in my life I considered playing a fighter earnestly. Which is not to say I never would have before or make a similar character but the newer ruleset sparked ideas in me.

I'm probably real biased becuase my favorite classes are sorceor and ranger and they did work to officially put them out of 2014s versions problem zones. I've been playing monk recently and the monk changed we got in the last pdf just made me go "wow I wish I could use these now on my monk already"

[Sorinth]

But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.

If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.

[Rukelnikov]

If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.

But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.

[Amnestic]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

Rogue should be a Wizard subclass.

(I do think more 'hybrid' subclasses are generally pretty neat though - if Multiclassing weren't a thing I'm sure we'd see more of them)

[Mastikator]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

[Arkhios]

I see even less differences between 5th edition and the OneD&D update than there were between 3.0 and 3.5, and I refuse to call it any other than 5th edition even going forward, unless the devs start doing that as well. I suspect the "switch" from 5th edition to its updated content will take as much effort or attention from me as it took to switch from 3.0 to 3.5, which wasn't a lot.

[Sorinth]

But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.

So a Templar of Correlon and Kord will be very alike and that's bad but a Knowledge cleric of Selune and and a knowledge cleric of Gond will also be very alike but that's somehow different? You'll have to explain that one to me.

[JackPhoenix]

Their spellcasting got bumped down to first level to compensate though. I'd much rather have Bless, Shield of Faith, and even Detect Magic at level 1 than a fighting style, especially since they don't even get the best one (Archery).

Yes, I'm certainly talking about changes I'm not about to use and don't care about and not the issue that's been around since 5e was published.

Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations?.

Stupid explanation to try to cover for the idiotic decision to move warlock's patron to level 3. It doesn't work for most of warlock concepts.

And in fact, I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3.

No surprise there.

[Sigreid]

I don't have any plans to switch at this time. 5e doesn't have any problems that negatively impact my game as long as people don't try to break things; and what I've seen in the UA doesn't lead me to believe that it'll positively improve my gaming experience to the value of the price of replacing the books.

[Rukelnikov]

So a Templar of Correlon and Kord will be very alike and that's bad but a Knowledge cleric of Selune and and a knowledge cleric of Gond will also be very alike but that's somehow different? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Because templariness isn't particularly related to Corellon's or Kord's ethos, while Knowledge is for Selune and Gond. So there is a reason in the narrative and won't be true for any 2 gods, only for those whose ethos overlaps.

[KorvinStarmast]

Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations?

Thus the boon at level 3. The patron offers a nicer gift once the warlock has demonstrated what you mention.

I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3.

While mechanically that is appealing, narratively the Warlock and Cleric, in particular, make far better sense to get that at level 1, as does the 'inborn magic' of the sorcerer class. (Which 5e could have done without). And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

[Amechra]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

[paladinn]

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

This is just getting silly

[Mastikator]

This is just getting silly

Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.