One D&D UA #2: "Expert Classes" Survey Open 10/20 - 11/23

[J-H]

The class grouping/categorization is a solid idea.

I bet they break it with at least one class design, though. I don't know which one, I just don't think WOTC will stick the landing on it.

Sounds like they got some feedback generally paralleling my thoughts on some changes.

[Sigreid]

Cleric and Druid will definitely both be full casters and definitely both be Priests so I don't expect them to make too big changes to the Warlock on those grounds.

In fact, Wizard and Sorcerer will likely both be mages, both full casters and both even use the same list. (I don't expect them to remove Sorcerer either given that the number of subclasses is going up rather than down.)



*bows*



Currently they're available to anyone who can cast the spell. We'll have to see the document to know for sure, but as it currently stands that means nobody without spellcasting will have access to them at all. Good news for Paladins, bad news for Scout Rogues on Phantom Steeds.



Not to mess up your table, but he let slip that there is a Priest Group around 10 minutes into the video

Unfortunate if they decide the fighter cant follow a ritual.

[Oramac]

17:43 - Class capstones will now all be at 18th level. At 20th you will now get an Epic Boon. This implies huge changes to multiple classes, most of all the Paladin, who uniquely gained their subclass capstone as their class capstone previously.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Some of the boons are REALLY powerful (two 9th level spell slots, anyone?). Also, the boons are not thematically tied to the class. Personally, I prefer a capstone that embodies the (sub)class for which it's made. It's one reason I love the paladin so much, and why damn near every homebrew I make uses subclass capstones.

I guess I'll wait and see, but I'm not too excited about this one.

Or do I smell AD&D 2e?

He actually mentioned 2e specifically in the video. So I'm pretty sure that's what you're smelling. :D

[Millstone85]

Not to mess up your table, but he let slip that there is a Priest Group around 10 minutes into the video

I can't find it. Do you have a time stamp?

[KorvinStarmast]

I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips.
Let the Capstone be something else.

[Psyren]

I can't find it. Do you have a time stamp?

Sorry, meant to say 14 minutes. 14:00-14:05 is where he lets it slip.

I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips.
Let the Capstone be something else.

a) We don't yet know if cantrip progression will change
b) Capstone at 18 is great, it means we can actually use our capstones for a while before the end of the campaign. (It likely also means that subclass capstones will be even earlier, say 15-16)

[Oramac]

I want the fighter attack progression to go 1/2/3/4 at levels 1/5/11/17 just like cantrips.
Let the Capstone be something else.

From the video, it seems like it'll be 1/5/11/18. So not too far off. And capstones are (potentially) now boons from the DMG.

[Dienekes]

How is that different from today? That's an honest question; I'm not seeing any non-Experts getting this feature anywhere, though I might be forgetting a subclass of some kind.

It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.

[Millstone85]

Sorry, meant to say 14 minutes. 14:00-14:05 is where he lets it slip.

Thanks. I completely missed that.

[paladinn]

I just hope they don't turn the fighter core class into a warblade. At most have that as a subclass. Just MHO.

[Dienekes]

I just hope they don't turn the fighter core class into a warblade. At most have that as a subclass. Just MHO.

And the exact opposite for me, of course. They tried to make the Warblade a subclass, there's just not enough room in a subclass to make a Warblade that actually interesting.

It'll be interesting from an academic standpoint to see where they go with things.

[Ignimortis]

Don't get too hopeful, this was recorded before the last survey closed so not all of the changes are due to feedback. But these could be.

Crawford claims that they were always going to test opposite approaches, and that they haven't really started analysing survey results yet (The video seems to have been recorded a week ago, what with him saying that the survey will be open for one more week).

Vacillating on whether to keep the blue, then. Hoping for the described way to win out thus far.

How is that different from today? That's an honest question; I'm not seeing any non-Experts getting this feature anywhere, though I might be forgetting a subclass of some kind.

I expect Skill Expert will still be around in 1DD, just with a higher level requirement. Meaning that if you want expertise in Tier 1, your only means of doing so will be to roll or multiclass an Expert.

That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

And the exact opposite for me, of course. They tried to make the Warblade a subclass, there's just not enough room in a subclass to make a Warblade that actually interesting.

It'll be interesting from an academic standpoint to see where they go with things.

It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.

Not expecting anything in that direction, personally. Would love if there was, but I sincerely doubt it will ever happen with the current zeitgeist. Again, would love to be proven wrong. But these days I'm increasingly leaning towards "maybe there are no good d20 games for me".

[Psyren]

It's not. But usually, when I see a new edition or whatever they want to call this, I'd like to see problems I have with the current system improved in some way. And as of now, my personal biggest issues are: 1) Mundanes have terrible out of combat utility. 2) The most complex and interesting martial is the Battle Master, and honestly, it's still pretty boring. To the point that I only play casters in 5e these days, despite thinking martials are far cooler conceptually.

So, that's the stuff I'm looking for. If it appears those issues aren't on their radar to be solved, well, then I probably won't get the new edition.

I guess we'll find out when we see the new Rogue tomorrow.

That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

Everyone can get Expertise - via a feat.

If you mean "Fighters, Barbarians, Monks and Paladins should get Expertise as a base class feature"... uh, no.

[Dienekes]

That's my point. I want it to be different from today. Today is, in my opinion, bad. I do not expect them to stop pretending that a couple Expertise'd proficiencies are comparable to getting ever increasing numbers of spells known and per day, but at least give everyone who doesn't have spells Expertise so that they can work with skills properly.

Not expecting anything in that direction, personally. Would love if there was, but I sincerely doubt it will ever happen with the current zeitgeist. Again, would love to be proven wrong.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. It’s unfortunate that with the DCs of skills as they currently are, the only way to get better than even odds of performing at the highest level, is with Expertise. Which just continues the trend of certain classes doing little to nothing outside of combat.

You could theoretically fix the problem by changing DCs (but so far in the packets that has not been demonstrated with 30 being the designated most difficult DC as it is in the base game) or expanding Proficiency Bonuses a bit. Which I doubt will happen with the promise of backwards compatibility.

The other option is to grant actual out of combat features. Which, WotC has been pretty tentative about. There’s definitely some out there. The skill maneuvers in Tasha’s which are mostly just worse Expertise. The most interesting is definitely Swashbucklers charm effect. But on the whole they’re pretty mediocre.

[Makorel]

The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.

[Millstone85]

The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.

IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.

[animorte]

The mvp of many threads, and counting, does it yet again!

Seriously, greatly appreciated Psyren. Keep up the good work.

[Ignimortis]

The other option is to grant actual out of combat features. Which, WotC has been pretty tentative about. There’s definitely some out there. The skill maneuvers in Tasha’s which are mostly just worse Expertise. The most interesting is definitely Swashbucklers charm effect. But on the whole they’re pretty mediocre.

Maybe that's the way they'll go, I suppose. The grouping of Warrior might suggest something like a common mechanic - maybe maneuvers? Although it all depends on how they group them. I'd rather Monk be Warrior and Paladin be Priest than in reverse.

Everyone can get Expertise - via a feat.

If you mean "Fighters, Barbarians, Monks and Paladins should get Expertise as a base class feature"... uh, no.

Paladins can go hang. But Fighters, Barbarians and Monks should get at least a couple of Expertise points, possibly more. Rogue gets four and should frankly get more anyway.

IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.

QFT. 2/3 off a very limited list or 1/2 off a less limited one is exactly where Bard belongs.

[Pex]

A brief mention of a new way of using skills. Very curious what they'll do there. It's nice Rangers will get Expertise, but I'm a little disappointed it likely means the Warrior classes won't get it. It was a hopeful idea in another thread to improve their lot. Oh well. I'll still offer the suggestion when the time comes.

[Mastikator]

A thing to note about subclasses, he said they're (we're?) playtesting 40 subclasses, not that the updated PHB would be limited to 40-something. And since it's supposedly backwards compatible then subclasses from other sourcebooks should be available too as they are. Or who knows there may come adjustment erratas.

[Pex]

Crit rules being reversed and Nat1s granting Inspiration instead of Nat20 is worrying. It's almost as if they're listening to feedback.

Only experts getting Expertise is worrying, no blue color. Especially since two Experts are almost surely spellcasters, so Expertise is less about skills being a way to compete with spells and more an arbitrary thing you either get by fluff or don't.

Experts getting to dip class abilities from other classes is double worrying. Need to see how it works first, though.

48 subclasses, huh? Willing to bet that at least, let's say, 15 of them will be Cleric and Wizard subclasses, and some other classes will get like 2 or 3 tops. Such is the way of WotC.

Twelve classes, four subclasses each would be my guess. If so it means changes to Cleric Domains and Wizard Schools.

[Psyren]

The mvp of many threads, and counting, does it yet again!

Seriously, greatly appreciated Psyren. Keep up the good work.

You're just trying to get in my sig!

Ahh who am I kidding, you win.

Paladins can go hang. But Fighters, Barbarians and Monks should get at least a couple of Expertise points, possibly more. Rogue gets four and should frankly get more anyway.

Just give them more feats. Boom, you have an extra one you can spend on Skill Expert, problem solved.

And that way, Rogue (who also gets more feats) can stay on top of the Expertise game where they belong.

The placing of Bard in the "Expert" category I hope means they're paring down their spell casting in favor of expanding Bardic Inspiration. As a mundane feature it's too good to be exclusive to a full caster imo.

IMO, the bard should never have been a full caster.

This sounds like a fantastic way to shatter their base beyond mending and ensure a good chunk of people never convert to 1DD. In short, awful idea.

[Ulsan Krow]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

[Corran]

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

Honestly, the ability to change spells should be a major, class-defining feature. Just about everyone should be spells known IMO.

[Psyren]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

10gp says Paladin and Monk will be Warriors.

Having every spellcaster being able to change their spell list after a long rest is a very poor idea, cause it allows the option of overthinking things while playing any caster. There should be caster options with fixed spells. This way whatever effort you want to put into mechanics you mainly do that in character creation, and during the actual game you have a much more relaxed experience. You just do the best you can with what you've got, instead of being forced to think of a great number of possibilities by being able to swap your whole list. I find both options to be valid, and I dont get the value of getting rid of one, at least from a gameplay point of view.

I do agree that if everyone is prepared it begs the question of why Sorcerer in the first place. Especially with them sharing even more of the Wizard list now.

At least we'll find out tomorrow. If the Bard is a prepared caster then we'll have reason to believe that's the goal for everyone and that's something we can push back on.

[Dienekes]

Just give them more feats. Boom, you have an extra one you can spend on Skill Expert, problem solved.

And that way, Rogue (who also gets more feats) can stay on top of the Expertise game where they belong.

Out of curiosity, why?

Like Expertise is a new feature that isn’t even Rogue exclusive in 5e. In earlier editions, all skills increased at the same rate. Rogues didn’t just have better skills. They had more of them, no doubt, but no one is trying to take away the number of skills a Rogue has. So it’s not tradition.

In the stories that I think of as inspiring D&D of old and modern day fantasy as well, I can think of incredibly skillful characters that I wouldn’t classify as Rogues. The list would include plenty of warriors and mages that showed very high proficiencies in various skills. So it doesn’t seem to be fitting the fantasy.

And as far as balance goes. As long as two of the pillars of play are not combat and are decided by skill checks, it’s frankly kinda weird to set one class as the potential best for all of it. Especially when they can still contribute very well in the combat pillar.

It’s not really a flavorful ability either. It’s just a means of evening out the weird number limitations of bounded accuracy.

It just seems a strange piece of tech to hoard.

[Makorel]

Ah, so the tried and true Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric class taxonomy after all. Interesting

Warriors

Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin?
Monk?


Mage

Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock

Expert

Rogue
Bard
Ranger
Artificer

Priest

Cleric
Druid
Paladin?
Monk?



I like this sort of stratum because you can emphasise some intramural class features - such as the god forsaken OOC utility discussion - without piddling concerns of classes erratically stepping on the toes of other class' features. Barbarian and Fighter can both be stronkmen without any furore, nice.

If we discount artificer, we have enough classes to neatly slot 3 under each category. Paladin I assume is a warrior. Warlock I could see being a priest considering how often they seem to parallel cleric. I would make the argument that monk is a mage with a martial power source but I doubt they'll go that route.

[Ulsan Krow]

10gp says Paladin and Monk will be Warriors.



I do agree that if everyone is prepared it begs the question of why Sorcerer in the first place. Especially with them sharing even more of the Wizard list now.

At least we'll find out tomorrow. If the Bard is a prepared caster then we'll have reason to believe that's the goal for everyone and that's something we can push back on.

If we discount artificer, we have enough classes to neatly slot 3 under each category. Paladin I assume is a warrior. Warlock I could see being a priest considering how often they seem to parallel cleric. I would make the argument that monk is a mage with a martial power source but I doubt they'll go that route.

Actually I think Monk Warrior, Paladin Priest.

Emphasising group similitude, Paladin's broader class group features would surely have more in common with the other priesty classes than the physical exemplars

Monk though it's mainly because mechanically Monk has always been so far removed from any semblance of a caster system, that and DnD's interpretation of a Monk is just one gallimaufry of dubious spirituality and not a super fleshed out connection with any religious institution or commune


Also, bah humbug you're right there's no 3/3/3/3 symmetry with the interspersion of the artificer.

I suppose they have to add the Warlord, Magus and Mystic now

[Corran]

Honestly, the ability to change spells should be a major, class-defining feature. Just about everyone should be spells known IMO.

I think one reason for having more prepared casters may have a lot to do with how easy is to get a feeling of buyer's remorse when playing a caster.

Another reason is because not all spells are created equal. There are too many spells that are highly situational, and a game with very few prepared casters would make most such spells nearly useless (or rather the exclussive property of the one versatile caster that the game would keep).

I dont know if I see it as a class defining feature (because I have not thought too much about it to be honest, though feel free to elaborate), but I certainly find it to be a very defining feature to my enjoyment of the game. Being able to massivly change your spells presents kind of a challenge. This challenge is sometimes enjoyable and sometimes it's not. It's nice to be able to choose either while still playing a magical character.